HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - Coastal Land Use Plan UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No.
July 14, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
James Campbell, Principal Planner
(949) 644 -3210 Lampbellna city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Coastal Land Use Plan Update
LC2007 -001 (PA 2007 -027)
ISSUE
Should the City adopt a comprehensive update to the Coastal Land Use Plan as
modified by the California Coastal Commission on February 5, 2009? The modified plan
reflects most of the land use. established by the 2006 Land Use Element.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the Coastal Land Use Plan with the
modifications approved by the California Coastal Commission (Exhibits 1 and 2).
DISCUSSION
Background
The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the policy document of the City's Local Coastal
Program (LCP). Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the CLUP must include the
relevant portion of the City's General Plan that is sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds,
location, and intensity of land uses and the applicable resource protection and
development policies. Implementation Program 5.1 of the General Plan calls for review
and revision of the CLUP for consistency with the General Plan.
On November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the CLUP
reflecting the 2006 Update of the General Plan and authorized its submittal to the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) for review and approval. On February 5, 2009, the
California Coastal Commission approved the City's amendment while making 50
suggested modifications. Adoption of the CLUP with the modifications requires a separate
action by the City Council to be effective.
CLUP Update
July 14, 2009
Page 2
Analysis
All 50 suggested modifications are contained within Exhibit 1 of the attached draft
resolution. The first 11 modifications reject the proposed land use categories and will
necessitate amending the General Plan. The changes are summarized in the following
table:
k
Site Location
Current
Proposed
Suggested Modification
Coast Highway at Cedar Street (6306,
1
6308, 6310 Coast H WY W)
Restaurant (Big Belly Deli); Real estate
CV -A
RT -E
Retain existing land use designation
office; professional office
2
3366 Via Lido
Apply MU -W (Mixed Use -Water
2 -story office building and parking lot
CV -A
RM -D
Related)
Apply CV -B (Commercial- Visitor) to
1200 W. Coast Hwy
portion of site occupied by the
Public Tidelands;
existing public hotel and supporting
3
Balboa Bay Club & Resort - Hotel
RH _
MU -W
facilities; Apply MU -W (Mixed Use-
(available to public) &Private Club &
Water Related) to portion of site
Residential
occupied by the existing residences
and club
4
2102 Ocean Front W
Apply CV-8 (Visitor Serving
Hotel - DorymansInn
CG -C
MU -W
Commercial)
S
2300 Coast Hwy W
Apply CV -A (Visitor Serving
Hotel - Holiday Inn Express
CG -B
MU -W
Commercial)
6
2306 Ocean Front W
Apply CV -B (Visitor Serving
Hotel - Newport Beach Walk Hotel
CG -C
MU -W
Commercial)
(Planning Study Area 1 (PSA -1)) includes
Shipyard Way, Anchorage Way, The Rhine,
Anza St, Beach Dr, Cabrillo St, Nomad St,
7
Drake St, El Paseo St, Bolivar St, Fremont
CM -B &
MU -W
Retain existing land use designations
St, Channel Road, and a portion of Lido
RM -B
Park Dr. Shipyard, mobile home park,
Commercial, Residential
Northerly side of Balboa Boulevard at
Island Avenue (500 -514 Balboa Blvd. W)
8
New market under development; plus
CR
RT -E
Apply MU -V (Mixed Use - Vertical)
existing restaurant, hair salon, barber,
laundromat, coffee shop
600 E. Bay Ave/ 600 Edgewater PI)
9
Balboa Fun Zone - Visitor Serving
CG -C
PI -C
Apply CV -B (Visitor Serving
Commercial & Nautical Museum
Commercial)
1901 -1911 Bayside Drive
10
Orange County Harbor Patrol /Coast Guard
OS
PF
Apply PR (Public Recreation)
Site
over sandy beach area
11
105 Main Street, Hotel - Balboa Inn
CG -C
MU -V
Apply CV-8 (Visitor Serving
Commercial)
CLUP Update
July 14, 2009
Page 3
Most of the listed changes above represent a continuation of the prior land use, although
changes to the land use designations are proposed. Modification #2 affects a bayfront
developed with a two -story office building located at 3366 Via Lido, and would allow
mixed -use residential rather than exclusive residential as requested. The Coastal
Commission wanted to retain commercial use on the ground floor for this site.
Modifications #1 (three small lots on W. Coast Hwy. at Cedar Street in West Newport
developed with commercial uses) and #8 (eight small lots on W. Balboa Blvd. at Island
Avenue developed with commercial and mixed -uses) would not permit exclusive
residential as desired, but would retain the commercial or mixed -use land use
designations. Modifications #4 (Dorryman's Inn in McFadden Square), #5 (Holiday Inn
Express in Mariners' Mile), #6 (Newport Beach Walk Hotel in McFadden Square), and #11
(Balboa Inn in Balboa Village) reflect the Commission's desire to maintain hotels rather
than allowing them to convert to other uses.
Although the City did not convince the Coastal Commission to approve the items listed
above, we were able to gain acceptance of many other significant changes in land use for
other areas of the City. Those changes are: mixed -use residential in Mariners' Mile
(although not to the same extent as proposed) and Lido Village; residential use within
Cannery Village; and contraction of the commercial district in Balboa Village, 15th Street
and West Newport.
Several of the other 39 suggested modifications were minor language changes and
corrections to map exhibits. Many others were negotiated by City staff to gain the support
for the overall change in land uses that the plan represented. They included incorporating
previously approved Land Use Element policies regarding Mariners' Mile, biological
resource protection and the inclusion of alternative transportation policies.
Several suggested Modifications related to lower -cost visitor accommodations and
timeshares which, if accepted, will represent a policy shift for the City. First, the changes
will limit the ability to eliminate existing lower -cost visitor accommodations. A feasibility
study would be required and, if rehabilitation is not considered possible, the lower -cost
accommodations could be eliminated only if mitigation of the loss is included as part of the
development project. A definition of lower -cost accommodation will need to be developed
with the implementation plan. The development of high -cost accommodations will require
the inclusion of lower -cost accommodations or the payment of a mitigation fee
commensurate with the project's actual impact to provide lower -cost accommodations
elsewhere.
The second area of change relates to timeshares, fractional ownership or condo - hotels
referred to as "limited use overnight visitor accommodations" or LUOVA. They will be
allowed in areas designated Visitor Serving Commercial (CV) as part of a hotel
development and limits will be placed on the duration of owner stays. The LUOVA units
will be managed by the hotel operator and would be included in the pool of available
rooms offered to the public when not committed to fractional owners. Although these
changes were contested by City staff, the Coastal Commission felt they were necessary in
light of the entire range of land use and policy changes sought by the City.
CLUP Update
July 14, 2009
Page 4
Effect of CLOP Adoption
If adopted, the CLUP will replace the current Coastal Land Use Plan which was certified
by the Coastal Commission in 2005. The City will use it to review all discretionary projects
in the Coastal Zone to determine their conformity with the Coastal Act. The Coastal
Commission will also use the CLUP to review coastal development permits until coastal
development permit authority is delegated to the City after Local Coastal Program
certification.
Environmental Review
The preparation and adoption of a Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan and
implementing ordinances) and amendments of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) are
statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. The
certification of an LCP process is considered a certified regulatory program and
California Coastal Commission's procedures have been determined to be the functional
equivalent of the Environmental Impact Report process.
Public Notice
A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was
provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice of the hearing is also provided
with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law
and appears on the City's website.
Alternatives
The City Council cannot revise the CLUP or any of the modifications approved by the
Coastal Commission; the City Council's action must be an "up or down vote."
Additionally, the Coastal Commission's approval of the amended CLUP expires on
August 5, 2009, so acceptance of the amendment is necessary before this date should
the City Council accept the amendment. Should the City Council opt not to approve the
modified CLUP, the City would have to draft, approve, and submit a new land use plan.
Pursuant to Section 13541 of the California Code of Regulations, the City cannot submit
substantially the same land use plan for a period of six (6) months. Simply eliminating the
Coastal Commission's suggested modifications from the current proposal is not
considered a substantial change. The preparation of a new or a substantially revised land
use plan would take several months in addition to the time necessary for local approval
including public hearings. The Coastal Commission staff could take from three (3) to
fifteen (15) months to review a revised plan. The City would have to either present new
evidence or an alternative approach to address the issues that prompted the Coastal
Commission modifications.
CLUP Update
July 14, 2009
Page 5
The City Council also has the option of adopting the CLUP as modified, then submitting an
amendment to the Coastal Commission on any issue or issues that are found to be
problematic.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
James Campbell 40.rDavid Lepo
Principal Planner o Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft resolution
A. Coastal Commission modifications
B. Coastal Land Use Plan with modifications
THIS PAGE
LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
m
Attachment 1
THIS PAGE
LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
on
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION'S RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL AND
RESOLUTION OF CERTIFICATION; ACCEPTING AND AGREEING TO
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS; ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -001 (PA2007 -027) FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LAND USE PLAN INCORPORATING COASTAL COMMISSION
MODIFICATIONS; AND AGREEING TO IMPLEMENT THE MODIFIED
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT.
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Act of 1976 established policies relating to
shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial
and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands,
commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development,
transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions,
accountability, and public accessibility, the Coastal Act relies heavily on local government
and local land use planning procedures and enforcement through the preparation of Local
Coastal Programs; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the policy document of the
City's Local Coastal Program and pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the CLUP must
include the relevant portion of the City's General Plan that is sufficiently detailed to indicate
the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and the applicable resource protection and
development policies; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal
Program was adopted in 2005 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 2005.
However, the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program was never completed;
and
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan,
after extensive public outreach and public participation, that changed the land use
designations and policies affecting properties within the Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive update of the Coastal Land Use Plan is necessary to
make it consistent with the comprehensive update of the General Plan adopted in 2006;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Coastal Land Use Plan was held by the
Planning Commission on March 8, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport
N
Resolution No.
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the
aforesaid meetings was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these
meetings; and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, a notice of the availability of the proposed Coastal
Land Use Plan Amendment of the City Coastal Land Use Plan was provided in
accordance with Section 13515(c) of the California Code of Regulations; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment was held
by the City Council on November 13, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the
aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2009, the Coastal Commission certified the Coastal
Land Use Plan Amendment with the modifications (contained in Exhibit 1) on grounds that
the Coastal Land Use Plan Amended with the suggested modifications meets the
requirements of, and be in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act;
and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in
the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with
the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by
the City Council at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the City Council did find as follows:
1. The Coastal Land Use Plan, as modified by the California Coastal Commission,
indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource
protection and development policies as required by the California Coastal Act.
2. The Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in
conformity with the California Coastal Act.
3. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter
3 of the Coastal Act.
4. The Coastal Land Use Plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with,
the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California
Coastal Act.
!v
Resolution No.
5. Adoption of this Coastal Land Use Plan, as modified by the California Coastal
Commission, does not preclude or prejudice the City from amending the Coastal
Land Use Plan in the future in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the Commission's resolution of
approval on NPB - MAJ -01, including any modifications which may have been required.
SECTION 2. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the Commission's resolution of
certification, including any modifications suggested for final certification, for NPB -MAJ-
01.
SECTION 3. The City Council accepts and agrees to the terms, conditions, and
modifications upon which Local Coastal Program amendment NPB - MAJ -01 have been
approved.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Coastal Land Use Plan with the
modifications approved by the Coastal Commission (Exhibit 1) as contained in attached
Exhibit 2.
SECTION 5. The City Council agrees to implement the modified Coastal Land Use
Plan (Exhibit 2) in accordance with the California Coastal Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2009, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
Resolution No.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1 Z
NPB-MAJ-1-07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 2 of 12
The City shall modify its land use plan maps to reflect the following revisions to the land use categories associated with the
listed sites. The City may select an alternative intensity of use for the sites listed, subject to the review and approval of the
Executive Director and subject to confirmation by the Commission itself through the Executive Director checkoff procedure.
a
Sit lip
li r
Sit,!
Hi'l
oil,
�illll
11,111 IX
iliz .i!
.ti
MAP 1 (see City of Newport Beach's Proposed Changes to the C UP Map "Icp—lu amend Changes_MAP
1"
Exhibit
I
I
I
1
West Newport Area:
Coast Highway at Cedar
Restaurant (Big Belly Deli);
CV-A (Visitor
RT-E
(Residential
Retain CV-A (Visitor Serving Commercial)
4
Street (6306, 6308, 6310
Real Estate Office;
Professional Office
Serving
Commercial)
- Two
!i
Land Use Designation
Coast HWY
Family)
MAP 2 (see City of Newport Beach's Proposed Changes to the C UP Map "lcp_ u_amend Ch nges MAP 2")(Exhlbill
2
3
Lido Village Area:
2 -story ce building and
ry
CV-A (Visitor
Serving
RM-D
(Residential
Apply Ml (Mixed Use-Water Related)
3366 Via Lido
parking lot
Commercial)
- Multiple
Land Use Designation
Unit)
Public Tidelands
RH-A/CM-C
Apply CV-B (Commercial-Visitor) Land
I
Balboa Bay Club & Resort -
(Residential
mi
Use Designation to portion of site occupied
3
15
Mariners' Mile Corridor:
Hotel (available to public) &
High
(Mixed Use-
by the existing public hotel and supporting
1200 W. Coast Hwy
Private Club & 144
Density/Mari
Water
facilities; Apply MU-W (Mixed Use-Water
Residential Units
ne
Related)
Related) to portion of site occupied by the
Commercial
existing residences and club
CG-C
MU_W
4
n/a
McFadden Square:
Hotel - Doryman's Inn
(General
(Mixed Use-
Apply CV-B (Visitor Serving Commercial)
2102 Ocean Front W
Commercial)
1)
ater
Land Use Designation
Related
5
n/a
Mariners' Mile (inlan d side):
Hotel - Holliday Inn Express
CG-B
(General
MU-W
(Mixed Use-
Apply CV -A (Visitor Serving Commercial)
2300 Coast Hwy W
Commercial)
Water
Land Use Designation
I
Related)
Exhibit 1
NPB-MAJ-1-07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 3 of 12
--S=M=
;11111�111.
M
i N
Oil
WOW
........... .......... .
11ju
7 1511111M.,
pllull I ra
CG -C
MU _W
6
n/a
McFadden Square Area:
Hotel - Newport Beach Hotel
(General
(Mixed Use-
Apply CV-B (Visitor Serving Commercial)
2306 Ocean Front W
Commercial)
Water
Land Use Designation
Related)
Lido Peninsula
(Planning Study Area 1
CM-B & RM-
(PSA-1)) includes Shipyard
B
Way, Anchorage Way, The
(Recreation
MU_W
Retain existing CM-13 (Recreation &
7
n/a
Rhine, Anza St, Beach Dr,
Shipyard, Mobile Home Park,
& Marine
(Mixed Use-
Marine Commercial) and RM-C (Medium
Cabrillo St, Nomad St,
Commercial, Residential
Commercial
Water
Density Residential) Land Use
Drake St, El Pasec, St,
and Medium
Related)
Designations
Bolivar St, Fremont St,
Density
Channel Road, and a
Residential)
I portion of Lido Park Dr.
I
MAP 3 (see City of Newport Beach's Proposed Changes to the C UP Map "lcp_ u–amend–Changes–MAP 3")(Exhibit 6)
Balboa Peninsula:
New market under
8
2
Northerly side of Balboa
development; plus existing
restaurant, hair salon,
CR
(Commercial
RT-E
(Residential-
Apply MU-V (Mixed Use-Vertical) Land
Boulevard at Island Avenue
barber, Laundromat, coffee
-Residential)
Two Family)
Use Designation
(500-514 Balboa Blvd. W)
shop
Balboa Village:
Balboa Fun Zone - Visitor
CG-C
PI-C
Apply CV-B (Visitor Serving Commercial)
9
7
600 E. Bay Ave/
Serving Commercial &
(General
(Private
Land Use Designation
600 Edgewater PI)
Nautical Museum
Commercial)
Institutional
10
11
1901-1911 Bayside Drive
Orange County Harbor
OS (Open
PF�A (Public
Apply FIR (Public Recreation) Land Use
I Patrol /Coast Guard Site
Sp ace l—
sc Jjliq
Designation over sandy beach area
11
n/a
Balboa Village:
e:
Hotel - Balboa Inn
CG-C
(General
M
(Mixed _V Use_
Apply CV -B (Visitor Serving Commercial)
105 Main Street
Commercial)
Vertical)
Land Use Designation
Exhibit 1
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 4 of 12
The addition of new policies may affect the numbering of subsequent LUP policies when
the City of Newport Beach publishes the final LUP incorporating the Commission's
suggested modifications. This staff report will not make revisions to the policy numbers.
The City will make modifications to the numbering system when it prepares the final LUP
for submission to the Commission for certification pursuant to Sections 13544 and 13544.5
of the California Code of Regulations.
California Coastal Commission Suggested Modifications - Inserted language shown in
underline; deleted language shown in strike out.
Suggested Modification No. 12: In consultation with the Coastal Commission's mapping
unit, modify all maps that depict the coastal zone boundary in the Banning Ranch area to
accurately depict the location of the coastal zone boundary.
Suggested Modification No, 13: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub- section 2.1.1 (Land Use Categories) modify the'uses' for Mixed Use
Water Related -MU -W in Table 2.1.1 -1 (Land Use Plan Categories), as follows: The MU -W
category is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay in a
manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses
and visitor - serving uses, as well as allow for the integrated development of mixed -use
structures with residential uses above the -ground floor. Freestanding residential uses shall
be prohibited. Overni -ght accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels. hostels) are allowed.
Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (e.g. time shares, fractionals,
condominium - hotels) may be permitted in lieu of allowable residential development
provided the use is above the ground floor.
Suggested Modification No. 14: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.1 (Land Use Categories) modify the 'uses' for Visitor Serving
Commercial -CV in Table 2.1.1 -1 (Land Use Plan Categories), as follows: The CV category
is intended to provide for accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and
services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. Limited Use
restrictions on the quantity, duration of owner use of such facilities, management of the
defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are
certified) and through the coastal development permit process.
Suggested Modification No. 15: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.3 (West Newport) modify proposed Policy 2.1.3 -1, as follows:
Work with community groups and the County to facilitate the acquisition of a portion or all
of the Western Entry Parcel (designated RM /OS) as open space, which may be used as a
staging area for Orange Coast River Park with up blic parking, public park - related uses,
and as underpassaccess to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi - family
residential on all or portions of the property not used for open space public parking, and
Exhibit 1
Is
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 5 of 12
public park - related uses. Require the siting and design of new development including
landscaping and public access to maintain buffers of sufficient size to protect sensitive or
rare resources including but not limited to those within the Semeniuk Slough wetland
against significant disruption of habitat values.
Suggested Modification No. 16: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), modify introductory narrative as follows:
The vitality of the Mariners' Mile Corridor will be enhanced by establishing a series of
distinct retail, mixed -use, and visitor - serving centers. Harbor - fronting properties would
accommodate a mix of visitor - serving retail, and- marine- related businesses and vertically
integrated mixed -use structures, With PGROORG of the prepaFties available for housing
mixed ,ise str,. ^t' • View and public access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor
would be required, with a up blic pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the
Harbor frontage. Parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between
Riverside Avenue and the southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a
pedestrian- oriented mixed -use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and
housing. Sidewalks would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster
pedestrian activity. Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the
east and west of the village would provide for retail, marine - related, and office uses.
Streetscape amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its
appearance and identity.
Suggested Modification No. 17: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.4 -1, as follows:
For properties located on the inland side of Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile Corridor
(that are designated as MU -H), (a) the Coast Highway frontages shall be developed for
marine - related and highway- oriented general commercial uses in accordance with CM and
CG categories; and (b) portions of properties to the rear of the commercial frontage may
be developed for free - standing neighborhood- serving retail, multi - family residential units,
or mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor in
accordance with the CN, RM , CV, or MU -V categories respectively.
Suggested Modification No. 18: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.4 -2, as follows:
For bay- fronting properties Ethat are designated as MU -NV), encourage marine - related and
visitor - serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses intermixed .th
°°id° es. Vertically integrated mixed use structures are allowed as described
below. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV,and MU -V
categories. On sites developed with mixed -use structures. a ,-minimum of 50 percent of
the permitted square footage shall be devoted to non - residential uses.aAy4Gt- used
fQF the me OF GV I° °a „1S°13 Mixed -use structures may only be developed on sites with
Exhibit 1
Jb
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 6 of 12
Suggested Modification No. 19: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's
Mile), as follows: For bay- fronting Properties that are designated as CV or CM encourage
marine - related and visitor- serving retail restaurant hotel /motel institutional and
recreational uses.
Suggested Modification No. 20: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's
Mile), as follows: Development shall be designed and planned to achieve high levels of
Suggested Modification No. 21: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's
Mile), as follows: Require sufficient area be provided for individual uses to prevent
uses.
Suggested Modification No. 22: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's
Mile), as follows: For bay- fronting properties provide plazas and other open spaces that
protect existing and provide new view corridors and access from Coast Highway to the
Harbor.
Suggested Modification No. 23: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's
Mile), as follows: For bay- fronting properties require that development on
the Bay frontage implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors including
the development of a public pedestrian promenade along the bavfront.
Suggested Modification No. 24: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's
Mile), as follows: For bay - fronting properties require that buildings be located and sites
designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast
Highway in accordance with the following principles as appropriate:
• Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor
• Modulation of building volume and mass
• Variation of building heights
• Inclusion of porticoes arcades windows and other "see - through" elements in
addition to the defined open corridor
■ Minimization of landscape fencing parked cars and other nonstructural elements
that block views and access to the Harbor
• Prevention of the appearance of the harbor being walled off from the public right -of -way
• Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adioining parcels
Exhibit 1
11
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 7 of 12
cumulatively form functional view corridors
Suggested Modification No. 25: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula) add new maps (or modify existing
proposed maps) that define the boundaries of the areas labeled 'Lido Village', 'Cannery
Village', 'McFadden Square', 'Lido Peninsula', and 'Balboa Village' consistent with the draft
maps submitted by City staff on October 7, 2008.
Suggested Modification No. 26: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -1, as
follows: For bay- fronting properties (that are designated as MU -W), marine - related uses
may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential on the upper floors. Permitted
uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU -V categories. In the MU -W
designation, free - standing and ground floor residential shall not be permitted in Lido
Marina Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Island.
Suggested Modification No. 27: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub- section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -2, as
follows: Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's
turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor - serving and retail
commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns), and mixed -use buildings
that integrate residential above the ground floor with retail uses.
Suggested Modification No. 28: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -7, as
follows: Accommodate visitor- and local- serving uses that take advantage of McFadden
Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small scale overnight
accommodations, as well as mixed -use buildings that integrate upper floor residential with
ground level retail.
Suggested Modification No. 29: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -10, as
follows: to For the Balboa Village core properties that are (designated as MU -V),
encourage local- and visitor - serving retail commercial and mixed -use buildings that
integrate residential with ground level retail or office uses that attract customer activity and
improve pedestrian character.
Suggested Modification No. 30: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub- section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Add new policy as follows:
Exhibit 1
1g
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 8 of 12
Development and use of lands designated CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) within Balboa
Village may include a component that is a visitor serving private institutional facility such as
a nautical museum, or similar visitor serving private institutional use
Suggested Modification No. 31: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1
(Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.8 (Balboa Bay Tennis Club), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.8 -1,
as follows: Allow the horizontal intermixing of 27 short -term rental units and 5- single- family
homes with the expanded tennis club facilities. Permitted uses include those permitted by
the MU -H and PR categories.
Suggested Modification No. 32: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.2
(General Development Policies), Sub - section 2.2.5 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses),
Modify proposed Policy 2.2.5 -2, as follows: In the older commercial districts of Balboa
Village and Corona del Mar allow existing commercial buildings that exceed current
intensity limits to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to no more than their pre-
existing intensity,
develop etuate
or establish a physical impediment to public access to coastal resources nor adversely
impact coastal views or biological resources Where such development cannot meet
current parking standards, such approval may only be granted if the proposed
development includes at least as much parking as the existing development and provides
Suggested Modification No. 33: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3
(Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.1 (Commercial), add the
following policy: Any proposal to demolish existing overnight accommodations shall be
Suggested Modification No. 34: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3
(Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.3 (Lower Cost Visitor and
Recreational Facilities), Modify existing policy 2.3.3 -1, as follows:
Provides high -cost overnight visitor accommodations or limited use overnight visitor
accommodations such as timeshares fractional ownership and condominium - hotels shall
Exhibit 1 ( 9
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 9 of 12
provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations commensurate with the impact of the
development on lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations in Newport Beach or pay an
"in -lieu" fee to the City in an amount to be determined in accordance with law that shall be
used by the City to provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations.
Suggested Modification No. 35:-DELETED BY COMMISSION ACTION AT THE
FEBRUARY 5, 2009, HEARING.
Suggested Modification No. 36: DELETED BY COMMISSION ACTION AT THE
FEBRUARY 5, 2009, HEARING.
Suggested Modification No. 37: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3
(Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.3 (Lower Cost Visitor and
Recreational Facilities), add the following policy: Policy 2.3.3 -W - DEFINING LOW -,
Suggested Modification No. 38 _In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3
(Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Policy 2.3.3 -V:
479 units planned may be limited -use overnight visitor accommodations). duration of
Process.
Suggested Modification No. 39, add the following definition to Section 5.0 (Glossary):
Exhibit 1
co
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 10 of 12
the use or occupancy periods into which the facility has been divided and shall include, but
not be limited to timeshare, condominium -hotel fractional ownership hotel, or uses of a
similar nature, as those terms shall be defined in the implementing regulations for this land
use plan (when such regulations are certified).
Suggested Modification No. 40: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), Modify existing Policy 2.9.1 -3, as
follows: Locate and design larger commercial and residential developments to be served
transit sewise and provide non - automobile circulation
to serve new within e development to the greatest extent possible.
Suggested Modification No. 41: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), Modify existing Policy 2.9.2 -6
(Transportation), as follows: Require new non - residential developments with floor areas of
10,000 square feet or more to provide bicycle racks for use by customers. Encourage
smaller non - residential developments to provide such facilities, when feasible.
Suggested Modification No. 42: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), Modify existing Policy 2.9.2 -7
(Transportation), as follows: Require new non - residential developments with a total of 100
or more employees to provide bicycle racks, lockers, and showers for use by employees
and tenants who commute by bicycle. Encourage smaller non - residential developments to
Suggested Modification No. 43: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.91 (Public Transit), add new policy: The City shall study
Suggested Modification No. 44: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), add new policy: Employment, retail,
Paths, and recreational trails (including the Coastal Trail) should be designed and
regulated to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.
Suggested Modification No. 45: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), add new policy: The City shall
measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Exhibit 1
2f
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 11 of 12
Suggested Modification No. 46: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9
(Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), add new policy: Encourage new
developments to design projects to facilitate transit ridership and ridesharing through such
means as locating and designing building entries that are convenient to pedestrians and
transit riders.
Suggested Modification No. 47, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1
(Biological Resources), Sub - section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the
following policy: In conjunction with new development require that all preserved ESHA
plan and funding shall be required to ensure appropriate management of the habitat area
in perpetuity.
Suggested Modification No. 48, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1
(Biological Resources), Sub - section 4. 1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the
following policy: Require all direct open space dedications or OTDs to be made to a public
agency or other appropriate entity that will manage the open space area on behalf of the
public.
Modification No. 49, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1
Resources), Sub - section 4. 1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the
Aicy: Encourage the acceptance of direct open space dedications or OTDs to
Suggested Modification No. 50, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1
(Biological Resources), Sub - section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the
following policy: Give consideration to applying the Open Space land use category to
lands with open space restrictions dedications or offers to dedicate.
Suggested Modification No. 51, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1
(Biological Resources), Sub- section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the
following policy: Dedicated open space areas or areas where there are open space offers
to dedicate open space easements and/or open space deed restrictions shall be
protected consistent with the requirements of the dedication offer to dedicate easement
or deed restriction.
Suggested Modification No. 52, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1
(Biological Resources), Sub - section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the
following policy: The City shall maintain an inventory of open space dedications or offers
to dedicate to ensure such areas are known to the public and are protected through the
coastal development permit process.
Exhibit 1
NPB- MAJ -1 -07
Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
Page 12 of 12
Suggested Modification No. 53, in Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.2
(Wetlands and Deepwater Areas) , Sub - section 4.2.3 (Dredging, Diking, and Filling),
Modify Existing Policy 4.2.3 -1, as follows (and re- letter as appropriate): Permit the diking,
filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes in accordance
with other applicable provisions of the LCP, where there is no feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to
minimize adverse environmental effects and limited to the following:
A. Construction or expansion of port/marine facilities.
B. Construction or expansion of coastal- dependent industrial facilities, including
commercial fishing facilities, and commercial ferry facilities. and
iR a degFade.d wetland, ideRtifi .d N the D 'h,,,ent_of Fish and .r- a t to
,
�. .. ...- ..�, , .,�. � ..fir .,v..pv. ,..� �...�- ,...�.r.
D. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including estuaries and streams, new
or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, marinas, recreational
boating, launching ramps, and pleasure ferries, and the placement of structural pilings for
public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
[no intervening changes]
Exhibit 1
Z3
THIS PAGE
LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
ZA
F
of
Newport
Bear
dl
Coastal
Proard
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Local Coastal Program
Coastal land Use Plan
W.
24
ILI
!Pi&�Pp*
First Approved by the California Coastal Commission on October 13, 2005
Adopted December 13, 2005, Resolution No. 2005 -64
Amended by the California Coastal Commission on February 5, 2009
Adopted July 14, 2009, Resolution No.
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
ii
Acknowledgements
City Council
Don Webb, Mayor
Steven Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tern
Tod W. Ridgeway, City Council Member
Leslie J. Daigle, City Council Member
Edward D. Selich, City Council Member
Richard A. Nichols, City Council Member
John Heffernan, City Council Member
Garold B. Adams, City Council Member (2004)
Steven Bromberg, City Council Member (2004)
Planning Commission
Michael Toerge, Chairman
Jeffrey Cole, Vice Chairman
Barry Eaton, Secretary
Larry Tucker, Planning Commissioner
Earl McDaniel, Planning Commissioner
Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner
Michael Henn, Planning Commissioner
Edward D. Selich, Planning Commissioner (2004)
Steven Kiser, Planning Commissioner (2004)
LCP Certification Committee
Council Member Tod W. Ridgeway, Chairman
Council Member Don Webb
Council Member Edward D. Selich
Planning Commissioner Earl McDaniel
Planning Commissioner Michael Toerge
Planning Commissioner Michael Henn
Council Member Steven Bromberg (2002 -2005)
City Staff
Robin Clauson, City Attorney
Sharon W. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
iii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 1 -1
1.2 Organization 1 -1
1.3 General Policies 1 -2
1.4 The Coastal Act 1 -2
1.5 The City of Newport Beach 1 -4
CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Land Use
IV
2.1.1 Land Use Categories
2 -1
2.1.2 District /Corridor Policies
2 -6
2.1.3 West Newport
2 -7
2.1.4 Mariners' Mile
2 -9
2.1.5 Balboa Peninsula
2 -11
2.1.6 Balboa Island
2 -17
2.1.7 Newport Dunes
2 -18
2.1.8 Balboa Bay Tennis Club
2 -18
2.1.9 Coastal Land Use Map
2 -19
2.2
General Development Policies
2.2.1 Location of New Development
2 -20
2.2.2 Coastal Development Review
2 -21
2.2.3 Exclusion Areas
2 -23
224 Deferred Certification Areas
2 -25
2.2.5 Nonconforming Structures and Uses
2 -26
2.3
Visitor - serving and Recreational Development
2.3.1 Commercial
2 -28
2.3.2 Open Space and Tidelands /Submerged Lands
2 -32
2.33 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities
2 -34
2.4
Coastal- dependent /related Development
2.4.1 Commercial
2 -38
2.4.2 Public Facilities
2 -40
2.5
Tidelands and Submerged Lands
2.5.1 The Tidelands Trust
2 -41
2.5.2 Tidelands Leases
2 -41
2.6
Industrial Development
2 -45
2.7
Residential Development
2 -47
IV
Table of Contents (Continued)
2.8 Hazards and Protective Devices
2.8.1
General
2 -49
2.8.2
Tsunamis and Rogue Waves
2 -50
2.8.3
Storm Surges and Seiches
2 -53
2.8.4
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
2 -56
2.8.5
Sea Level Rise
2 -57
2.8.6
Coastal Erosion
2 -58
2.8.7
Geologic and Seismic
2 -64
2.8.8
Fire
2 -68
2.9 Transportation
2.9.1
Public Transit
2 -71
2.9.2
Bikeways and Trails
2 -73
2.9.3
Parking
2 -74
CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access
3.1.1
Shoreline Access
3 -1
3.1.2
Bluff Top Access
3 -11
3.1.3
Beach Encroachments
3 -13
3.1.4
Bay /Harbor Encroachments
3 -16
3.1.5
Private /Gated Communities
3 -17
3.1.6
Preferential Parking Districts
3 -20
3.1 .7
Temporary Events
3 -21
3.1.8
Temporary Closures
3 -23
3.2 Recreation and Support Facilities
3.2.1
Recreational Opportunities
3 -24
3.2.2
Support Facilities and Services
3 -26
3.2.3
Access for Persons with Disabilities
3 -31
3.3 Vessel Launching, Berthing, and Storage
3.3.1
Vessel Launching
3 -33
3.3.2
Berthing and Storage
3 -34
3.3.3
Harbor Support Facilities
3 -36
CHAPTER 4 - COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
4.1 Biological Resources
4. 1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats 4 -1
4.1.2 Marine Resources 4 -9
1N
Table of Contents (Continued)
CHAPTER 5 - GLOSSARY
Glossary
Vi
5 -1
4.1.3
Environmental Study Areas
4 -14
No. 1 Semeniuk Slough
4 -15
No. 2 North Star Beach
4 -17
No. 3 West Bay
4 -18
No. 4 Upper Newport Bay Marine Park /DeAnza
4 -19
No. 5 San Diego Creek
4 -21
No. 6 Eastbluff Remnant
4 -23
No. 7 Mouth of Big Canyon
4 -24
No. 8 Newporter North
4 -25
No. 9 Buck Gully
4 -26
No. 10 Morning Canyon
4 -28
No. 11 Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area
4 -30
No. 12 Castaways
4 -31
No. 13 Newport Harbor Entrance Kelp Beds
4 -33
4.1.4
Eelgrass Meadows
4 -40
4.1.5
Coastal Foredunes
4 -42
4.2
Wetlands and Deepwater Areas
4.2.1
Southern California Wetlands
4 -44
4.2.2
Wetland Definition and Delineation
4 -46
4.2.3
Dredging, Diking, and Filling
4 -48
4.2.4
Dredge Spoils Disposal
4 -57
4.2.5
Eelgrass Protection and Restoration
4 -59
4.3
Water Quality
4.3.1
7MDLs
4 -62
4.3.2
NPDES
4 -65
4.3.3
SSOs
4 -69
4.4
Scenic and Visual Resources
4.4.1
Coastal Views
4 -71
4.4.2
Bulk and Height Limitation
4 -74
4.4.3
Natural Landform Protection
4 -76
4.4.4
Signs and Utilities
4 -83
4.5
Paleontological
and Cultural Resources
4.5.1
Paleontological and Archaeological Resources
4 -84
4.5.2
Historical Resources
4 -86
4.6
Environmental Review
4 -89
CHAPTER 5 - GLOSSARY
Glossary
Vi
5 -1
List of Maps
CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Map 1: Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -80
Map 2: Bikeways and Trails 2 -81
CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Map 3 -1: Coastal Access and Recreation (3 maps) 3 -38
Map 3 -2: Support Facilities 3 -41
Map 3 -3: Parks 3 -42
Map 3 -4: Vessel Launching, Berthing and Storage 3 -43
CHAPTER 4 - COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
Map 4 -1: Environmental Study Areas 4 -92
Map 4 -2: Marine Resources 4 -93
Map 4 -3: Coastal Views (3 maps) 4 -94
Map 4 -4: Historical Resources 4 -97
List of Figures
CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Figure 2.1.3
-1:
West Newport
Figure 2.1.4
-1:
Mariner's Mile
Figure 2.1.5
-1:
Lido Village / Cannery/ Lido Peninsula / McFadden
Figure 2.1.5
-2:
15th Street
Figure 2.1.5
-3:
Balboa Village
Figure 2.1.6
-1:
Balboa Island Commercial
Figure 2.1.7
-1:
Newport Dunes
Figure 2.1.8
-1:
Balboa Bay Tennis Club
SPECIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS
2 -82
2 -83
2 -84
2 -85
2 -86
2 -87
2 -88
2 -89
Pages 2 -11, 4 -15, and 4 -41 Copyright (C) 2002 -2005 Kenneth & Gabrielle
Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Coliforniccoastline.org.
Vii
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This document establishes the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program
of the City of Newport Beach, prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act
of 1976. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that
govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport
Beach and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning
Ranch. The physical boundaries of the area to which the Coastal Land Use Plan
applies are shown on the Coastal Land Use Map, included as Map 1. Newport
Coast is governed by the previously certified and currently effective Newport Coast
segment of the Orange County Local Coastal Program. Banning Ranch is a
Deferred Certification Area (DCA) due to unresolved issues relating to land use,
public access and the protection of coastal resources (see Section 2.2.4).
1.2 Organization
The Coastal Act contains coastal resources planning and management policies that
address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources,
development, and industrial development. The Coastal Land Use Plan addresses
these topics under the following chapters:
Land Use and Development. This chapter includes policies for topics in
Sections 30007, 30212.5, 30213, 30221- 30223, 30235 - 30236, 30250,
30252 - 30253, 30255, 30260, 30262, 30600, 30610.5 of the Coastal Act.
Public Access and Recreation. This chapter includes policies for topics in
Sections 30210 - 30214, 30220- 30224, 30234, 30234.5, 30244, and 30252
of the Coastal Act,
Coastal Resource Protection. This chapter includes policies for topics
covered in Sections 30230 - 30233, 30240, 30244, and 30251 of the Coastal
Act.
Each chapter is divided into sections and subsections. Each section or subsection
begins with the identification of the Coastal Act sections that are relevant to Newport
Beach, followed by a narrative of the local setting and policy direction adopted by the
City to address the requirements of the Coastal Act and a listing of specific policies.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -1
1.3 General Policies
The following policies shall be applied to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Coastal Act in applying the policies of this Coastal Land Use Plan:
The policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC Sections 30200
30265.5) shall be the guiding policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal
Land Use Plan and those set forth in any element of the City's General
Plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, the policies of the Coastal Land Use
Plan shall take precedence. However, in no case, shall the policies of the
Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed
a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing
ordinances.
3. In the event of any ambiguities or silence in this Coastal Land Use Plan
not resolved by (1) or (2) above, or by other provisions of the City's LCP,
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act shall guide interpretation of this
Coastal Land Use Plan.
4. This Coastal Land Use Plan is not intended, and shall not be construed,
as authorizing the Coastal Commission or City to exercise its power to
grant or deny a permit in a manner that will take or damage private
property for public use, without the payment of just compensation therefor.
This Section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any
owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or the
United States.
5. No provision of the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Coastal Act is a
limitation on any of the following:
A. On the power of the City to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances.
B. Except as otherwise limited by state law, on the power of the City to
adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in conflict with the
Coastal Land Use Plan or the Coastal Act, imposing further conditions,
restrictions, or limitations with respect to any land or water use or other
activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone.
1.4 The Coastal Act
In 1972, the United States Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act
(Title 16 U.S.C. 1451 - 1464). The CZMA declared a national policy "to preserve,
protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -2
Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." The CZMA sought to
encourage and assist States to develop and implement management programs for
the use of coastal land and water resources, "giving full consideration to ecological,
cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic
development."
The Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) was approved by a 55.2
percent vote in 1972. It prohibited development 1,000 yards inland from California's
mean high tide without a permit from a regional or state coastal commission. It
created a temporary California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six
regional commissions to develop a statewide plan for coastal protection. The
California Coastal Plan was submitted to the Legislature in 1975 and led to the
passage of the California Coastal Act in 1976.
I ne coastal Act estaousnea the
permanent California Coastal
Commission. The Coastal Coastal Act Goals for the Coastal Zone
Commission's mandate is to
protect and enhance the a) Protect,* maintain and, where tensible, enhance and
restorethe overall quality of thecoasto zone environment.
resources of the coastal zone and 'as natural, and artificial resources.
mapped by the Legislature. b Assure orckdy, balanced ut lization and conservation of
Coastal Commission coastal zone resources taking into account the social and:
membership is composed of economlcnee iofthepeopleofthestate
twelve voting members, c} rdaarnze public: access to and along the coast anal
appointed equally by the maximize public recreational opportun im
it es'the coastal
zone: consistent. with sound resources conservation'
Governor, the Senate Rules principles and constitutionally protected rights of private
Committee, and the Speaker of propedyowners,
the Assembly. Half of the voting a> Assure priority for ceastaktependent and coasts l related
commissioners are locally development over other deveMprnentonthe :boast.
elected officials and half are ey Encourage state and local Intatves and cooperaton in
representatives of the public at preparing. prooedurestoimplement000rdina ted.plannng
and development for mutually '. berieficiei uses, including:
large. The Coastal Commission educational uses, 'in the coastelzone.
also has four ex officio (non -
Pub7ic Resources Code Section 300014
voting) members representing
the Resources Agency, the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the Trade and Commerce Agency
and the State Lands Commission.
The Legislature found that "to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions,
accountability, and public accessibility, it is necessary to rely heavily on local
government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement." Therefore,
implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the
preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), reviewed and approved by the
Coastal Commission. An LCP typically consists of a land use plan and an
implementation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -3
land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where
necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of
the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary
to implement the land use plan. Any amendments to the certified LCP will require
review and approval by the Coastal Commission prior to becoming effective.
After certification of an LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the
appropriate local government. The Coastal Commission retains original permit
jurisdiction over certain specified lands, such as submerged lands, tidelands, and
public trust lands, and has appellate authority over development approved by local
government in specified geographic areas and for major public works projects and
major energy facilities. In authorizing coastal development permits, the local
government must make the finding that the development conforms to the certified
LCP. Furthermore, after certification of the LCP, City actions on applications for
Coastal Act authority to conduct certain types of development and development
within certain geographic areas are appealable, to the Coastal Commission.
1.5 The City of Newport Beach
History
In order to fully understand the relationship between the Coastal Land Use Plan and
the community, it is necessary to understand the community and the historical events
that have influenced it. The history of Newport Beach begins with the bay. It is the
story of how natural forces shaped the land and coast and how people responded to
these changes.
It is believed that Newport Bay formed
about 300,000 years ago when a
precursor of the Santa Ana River
flowed into the northern end of the bay
and carved a deep canyon. Rising sea
levels submerged the bay until about
15,000 to 25,000 years ago. When the
bay reemerged, the Santa Ana River,
as it did throughout its history, had
shifted across the coastal plain and
now flowed into the ocean at Alamitos
Bay.
10,000 to 12,000 years ago, aboriginal Tongva millingstone
hunters and gatherers were first drawn
to this area by the rich bounty of the bay and ocean. These original inhabitants
supplemented their diet with a variety of meat from marine resources, including
shellfish, fish, and birds and probably ventured out into the ocean in rafts to fish for
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1A
Sheepshead, Blacksmith, and Giant Kelpfish. The most recent native people were
the Tongva (Gabrielinos) and the Acjachemem (Juanenos), who lived in small
villages around the bay until the beginning of the Mission period in the 1770's.
During the Mission period, the hills above the bay were part of a vast open cattle
range of the Mission San Juan Capistrano. Early Spanish names for the bay were
Bolsa de Quigara (bay with high banks) or Bolsa de Gengara, in reference to a
nearby Indian village. After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1831, the
mission lands were broken up and redistributed through land grants. In 1837, the
bay became a part of Rancho San Joaquin under the ownership of Jose Andres
Sepulveda. Floods and droughts caused Sepulveda to sell the ranch in 1864 and it
eventually became a part of the expansive Irvine Ranch.
The bay at that time was open to the ocean and part of a large estuary that stretched
from Huntington Beach to Corona del Mar. In 1825, unusually heavy floods again
shifted the mouth of the Santa Ana River to the southeast of the Huntington Beach
mesa. Sand carried by the river began to form a peninsula. Over the next thirty
years, the peninsula made steady progress in a southeasterly direction. By 1857,
the eastern tip had reached to approximately where Bay Island is today. Floods
during the winter of 1861 -62 extended the peninsula to the present harbor entrance.
This barrier beach forced the Santa Ana River to flow parallel to the coast. The
accretion of silt made the bay shallower and spread marsh vegetation.
1• In the late 1860's, the bay was used
as a landing to load hides, tallow, hay
and other goods for export. In
September 1870, Captain Samuel S.
Dunnells' steamer Vaquero ventured
into the bay to offload a cargo of
a lumber and shingles. Captain
Dunnells soon established "Newport
r, Landing" by constructing a small
wharf and warehouse near the west
end of the present Coast
Highway /Newport Bay Bridge.
James McFadden and his younger
1875 survey map of Newport Bay brother Robert acquired the landing in
1875 and for the next nineteen years
operated a thriving commercial trade
and shipping business. However, the bay was not yet a true harbor and sand bars
and a treacherous bay entrance caused the McFadden Brothers to move the
shipping business to the oceanfront by constructing a large pier on the sand spit that
would become the Balboa Peninsula. The site was ideal because a submarine
canyon (Newport Submarine Canyon), carved along with Newport Bay by the ancient
Santa Ana River, provided calm waters close to the shore. McFadden Wharf was
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -5
completed in 1888 and was connected by rail to Santa Ana in 1891. For the next
eight years, the McFadden Wharf area was a booming commercial and shipping
center and a company town began to grow. However, in 1899, the Federal
Government allocated funds for major improvements to a new harbor at San Pedro,
which would become Southern California's major seaport. The McFadden Wharf
and railroad was sold to the Southern Pacific Railroad that same year, signaling the
end of Newport Bay as a commercial shipping center.
In 1902, James McFadden sold his Newport townsite and about half of the Peninsula
to William S. Collins, who saw Newport Bay's resort and recreation potential. Collins
took on Henry E. Huntington as a partner in the Newport Beach Company.
Huntington had acquired the Pacific Electric railway system and used it to promote
new communities outside of Los Angeles. In 1905, the Pacific Electric "Red Cars"
were extended to Newport and then to Balboa the following year. Also in 1906,
Collins began dredging a channel on the north side of the bay and deposited the
sand and silt on tidelands that would become Balboa Island. Between 1902 and
1907, many of Newport Beaches' waterfront communities were subdivided, including
West Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, Balboa, and Balboa Island. This
established the grid system of small lots and narrow streets and alleys that still exists
today in these areas.
In 1906, the City of Newport Beach, consisting
of West Newport and Balboa Peninsula,
incorporated. In 1916, most of Balboa Island
was annexed, followed by Newport Heights in
1917, Corona del Mar in 1924, and the
balance of Balboa Island in 1927. In 1923, the
dredging and filing of mud flats that would
become Lido Island began. At this time,
Newport Beach was still a beach town, with
most of the homes being constructed as
beach cottages and second homes used for
vacations. However, public safety concerns
would move Newport Beach to embark on a
series of projects to protect and improve the
harbor and ultimately lead to the next stage in
the City's development.
Newport Beach circa 1910
At that time, the channels in the bay were narrow, shallow, and tortuous. Two
massive floods in December 1914 and January 1916 filled the harbor and beaches
with silt and debris. This and an increasing number of drownings at the harbor
entrance prompted Newport Beach voters to approve funds to build the westjetty. In
1919, Orange County voted for funds to extend the jetty and build a dam to divert the
Santa Ana River from the bay and flow directly into the ocean west of the City. The
harbor improvements turned a small colony of fishermen into a major industry. In
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1-6
the1920's the sport fishing and commercial fishing would become the major source
of income in Newport Beach. In 1921, the first of four commercial fish canneries was
built on the Rhine Channel. The boatyard industry also began to flourish.
The great increase in the number of commercial and recreational boats in the 1920s
led to calls for further harbor improvements. Also, the consensus gradually changed
from development of a commercial harbor to a recreational harbor. In 1928, Newport
Beach voters approved funds for work on the west and east jetties. In 1933, a
federal grant and matching funds from an Orange County bond measure provided
funds to extend the jetties and dredge the entire Lower Newport Bay. On May 23,
1936, Newport Harbor was dedicated. The completion of the harbor improvements
increased recreational and commercial boating activity. The South Coast Shipyard
produced all types of pleasure craft. With the United States entry into World War ll,
the boatyards quickly shifted to the wartime production. South Coast and the new
Lido Shipyard produced minesweepers, sub chasers, and other military vessels. By
the end of the war, the summer beach resort town had become a city of 10,000
people.
The postwar boom in Southern California led to the next stage in the City's
development. The Irvine Company began to open some of its vast land holdings
east of the City to residential development. During the 1950's the City annexed over
4,382 acres, more than tripling its land area. In 1960, the City had a population of
26,565 people. The 1960's saw the development of major employment, commercial,
and educational centers in Orange County. The City annexed another 2,280 acres,
including the Newport Dunes and the future sites of Newport Center and Fashion
Island. In 1970, the City's population had reached 49,442 people.
The expansion and development of the City led to a period of introspection in the
1970's. In 1969, a citizens committee completed work on a set of community goals
titled Newport Tomorrow, which served as the basis for the City's 1973 General Plan.
Newport Tomorrow also served as a catalyst for a series of special studies, which
resulted in new development controls.
In 1970, the Lower Newport Bay Civic District study began to analyze development
around the lower bay, including height limits, the preservation of marine service
facilities, public access, and view corridors. The study resulted in the adoption of the
Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance in 1972, which established new height and
bulk restrictions around the bay. Height limits along Pack Coast Highway and other
commercial areas were lowered from 85 to 26 feet. Residential development
standards for Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, West Newport, and the Balboa
Peninsula followed in 1973 and 1974, which set stricter floor area and height limits
and higher off - street parking and open space requirements.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -7
A proposed land exchange
between the County of Orange
and the Irvine Company cleared
the way for the development of
the Upper Newport Bay with
residential uses and marinas in
the early 1960's. Newport
Beach residents began a
movement to preserve the Upper
Bay, first winning local
government support, then at the
County, then at the State. In
1973, an appellate court ruled
that a proposed land exchange
Upper Newport Bay tiro 1952 was unconstitutional. In 1974, a
committee composed of Federal,
State, and local agencies and interested members of the community produced a plan
that recommended preservation of the Upper Bay. The Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve (Upper Newport Bay Marine Park) was created in 1975 as result
of the purchase of 527 acres of land in and around the bay from the Irvine Company
and the transfer of 214 acres of tidal wetlands from the County of Orange to the
State.
The City continued to expand and
develop in the 1980's and 1990's, albeit
at a slower pace. The City's population
was 65,283 in 1980, and increased to
66,643 in 1990. Land use and
development policies continued to be
refined. In 1988, comprehensive
amendments to Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General
Plan were adopted to establish
reasonable density and intensity limits,
allow for modest growth, and to better
correlate land uses with the circulation
system. Specific plans were adopted
for the older commercial districts on the
Balboa Peninsula, including Cannery
Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa
Village. By the year 2000, the
population had reached 70,032.
Coastal History Notes
1905
Balboa Pier and Balboa Pavilion constructed.
1909
Balboa Island Ferry service established.
1911
First yacht club established in Newport Beach.
1913
Frost Life Saving Corps organized.
1917
First commercial fish cannery opens.
1918
Newport to Balboa boardwalk constructed.
1922
Duke Kahanamoku introduces sufing at Newport
1922
City purchases Newport Pier (McFadden Wharf).
1923
First public restrooms built at McFadden Place.
1923
First City lifeguard service created.
1934
Sea salt works dike constructed in Upper Bay.
1936
Fun Zone opens.
1948
First Newport- Ensenada Yacht Race.
1958
Newport Dunes opens.
1969
Floods breach salt works dikes, sifts Upper Bay.
1971
Fun Zone saved from condominium development.
1982
Upper Newport Bay dredged to Gear silt build -up.
1982
First LCP Land Use Plan certified.
2000
Upper Newport Bay Interpretative Center opens.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -8
Newport Beach in 2004
At the beginning of the 21St Century, Newport Beach is a community of 75,662
people covering 25.4 square miles, including 2.5 square miles of bay and harbor
waters. The City has over 30 miles of bay and ocean waterfront. Over 63 percent of
the City is in the coastal zone.
While Newport Beach is no longer a sleepy little beach town, the bay and beach
continue to play an important role in the community's character and economy.
Newport Harbor is the largest small craft harbor in the United States with over 9,000
boats at 2,119 commercial slips and side ties, 1,221 bay moorings, and 1,230 piers.
Beach attendance averages 9.4 million people annually.
Newport Beach continues to be a major visitor destination. In FY 2001, the City
received 7.2 million visitors (people other than those who reside or work here). Over
80 percent of the City's visitors are here for purposes of leisure. The City has 16
hotel properties with 2,977 rooms and 535 seasonal housing units. However, the
vast majority are day visitors.
Aerial view of the Balboa Peninsula
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
1 -9
2.0 Land Use and Development
2.1 Land Use
The Coastal Land Use Plan was derived from the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The
Land Use Element may contain more precise development limits for specific
properties. Should a conflict exist, the land use intensity or residential density limit
that is most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. However, in no
case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a
development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its
implementing ordinances.
2.1.1 Land Use Categories
Policy 2.1.1 -1 The land use categories in Table 2.1.1 -1 establish the type, density
and intensity of land uses within the coastal zone. If there is a
conflict between the development limits of the Land Use Element
and the Coastal Land Use Plan, the provision that is most
protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. However, in
no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be
interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit
established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances.
Table 2.1.1-1 Land - Plan Categories
tQ o:".; 1: >.. "" Uses =, °: ,Dan;" /listens'° -11-k
Residential Neighborhoods
Single Unit Residential
Detached —RSD
The RSD category applies to a range of
detached single - family residential dwelling units
on a single legal lot and does not include
condominiums or cooperative housing.
RSD -A
0.0 – 5.9 DU/AC
RSD -B
6.0 – 9.9 DUTAC
RSD -C
10.0 –19.9 DUTAC
RSD -D
20.0 – 29.9 DUTAC
Single Unit Residential
Attached —RSA
The RSA category applies to a range of
attached single - family residential dwelling units
on a single legal lot and does not include
condominiums or cooperative housing.
RSA -A
0.0 – 5.9 DU/AC
RSA -B
6.0- 9.9DU/AC
RSA -C
10.0 –19.9 DUTAC
RSA -D
20.0 – 29.9 DU /AC
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -1
Table 2. 1.1 -1 Land Use Plan
Categories
Ilse Cate "'
Yisest, as I
Donsr
Two Unit
Residential -RT
The RT category applies to a range of two
family residential dwelling units such as
duplexes and townhomes.
RT -A
0.0- 5.9DU/AC
RT -B
6.0- 9.9DU/AC
RT -C
10.0 -19.9 DUTAC
RT -D
20.0 - 29.9 DU /AC
RT -E
30.0 - 39.9 DU /AC
Multiple Unit
Residential -RM
The RM category is intended to provide
primarily for multi - family residential
development containing attached or detached
dwelling units.
RM -A
0.0 - 5.9 DU /AC
RM -B
6.0 - 9.9 DU /AC
RM -C
10.0 -19.9 DU /AC
RM -D
20.0 -29.9 DU /AC
RM -E
30.0 - 39.9 DU /AC
RM -F
40.0 - 52.0 DU /AC
Commercial Districts and Corridors
The CN category is intended to provide for a
limited range of retail and service uses
Neighborhood
developed in one or more distinct centers
0.00 - 0.30 FAR
Commercial -CN
oriented to primarily serve the needs of and
maintain compatibility with residential uses in
the immediate area.
Corridor Commercial-
The CC category is intended to provide a range
CC
of neighborhood- serving retail and service uses
along street frontages that are located and
designed to foster pedestrian activity,
CC -A
0.00 - 0.50 FAR
CC-13
0.00 - 0.75 FAR
General Commercial-
The CG category is intended to provide for a
CG
CG -A
wide variety of commercial activities oriented
primarily to serve citywide or regional needs.
0.00 - 0.30 FAR
CG -B
0.00 - 0.75 FAR
Recreational and
The CM category is intended to provide for
Marine Commercial-
commercial development on or near the bay in
CM
a manner that will encourage the continuation
of coastal- dependent and coastal- related uses,
maintain the marine theme and character,
CM -A
0.00 - 0.30 FAR
encourage mutually supportive businesses,
CM -B
encourage visitor - serving and recreational
0.00 - 0.50 FAR
uses, and encourage physical and visual
access to the bay on waterfront commercial
and industrial building sites on or near the bay.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -2
Table 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan
Categories
'.t.a`Rd#(7seCatebo ��
a
' a W4 vr "." Uses, *� ,�" t;+'7"
JVDeri's'_i /Intens
Visitor Serving
The CV category is intended to provide for
Commercial —CV
accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels),
goods, and services intended to primarily serve
visitors to the City of Newport Beach. Limited
CV -A
0.00 – 0.75 FAR
Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (e.g .
time shares, fractionals, condominium - hotels)
( LUOVA) are an allowed use when provided
together with traditional overnight, hotel visitor
accommodations. Furthermore, any permitted
LUOVA shall be subject to specific restrictions
on the quantity, duration of owner use of such
CV -B
facilities, management of the
0.00 –1.50 FAR
accommodations as part of the hotel facility
and an allowance for transient overnight use
by the general public when not owner
occupied. All of these requirements shall be
further defined in the implementing
regulations for this land use plan (when such
regulations are certified) and through the
coastal development permit process.
General Commercial
The COG category is intended to provide for
Office --COG
administrative, professional, and medical offices
with limited accessory retail and service uses.
Hotels, motels, and convalescent hospitals are
not permitted.
COG -A
0.00 – 0.30 FAR
COG -B
0.00 -0.75 FAR
COG -C
0.00 –1.30 FAR
Mixed Use Districts
Mixed -Use
Buildings: Floor area
to land ratio of 1.5,
The MU -V category is intended to provide for
where a minimum
floor area land ratio
the development of properties for (a) mixed -use
of 0.35 and d maximum
structures that vertically integrate housing with
of 0.5 shall be used
Mixed Use Vertical—
retail uses, where the ground floor shall be
for nonresidential
MU -V
restricted to retail and other pedestrian- active
Purposes and a
uses along the street frontage and/or the upper
maximum of 1.0 for
floors used for residential units, or (b) structures
residential.
containing nonresidential uses including retail,
office, restaurant, and similar uses.
Nonresidential
Buildings: Floor area
to land area ratio of
0.75.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -3
Table 2. 1. 1 -1 Land Use
�Iand(lse Oat o
Plan Categories
n. : "' :,.Uses,'
Deitsr /frtte%ri...
Mixed -Use Buildings:
Floor area to land area
ratio of 1.5, where a
minimum floor area to
The MU -H category is intended to provide for
land area ratio of 0.25
the development of areas for a horizontally
and maximum 0.5 shall
distributed mix of uses, which may include
be used for retail uses
and maximum of 1.0
Mixed Use Horizontal—
general or neighborhood commercial,
for residential.
MU -H
commercial offices, multi - family residential,
visitor - serving and marine - related uses, and /or
Nonresidential only:
buildings that vertically integrate residential with
Floor area to land area
commercial uses.
ratio of 0.5.
Residential only:
20.1 -26.7 units per net
acre.
Mixed -Use Buildings:
Floor area to land ratio
The MU -W category is intended to provide for
of 1.5; where a
commercial development on or near the bay in
minimum floor area to
a manner that will encourage the continuation
land ratio of 0.35 and
of coastal- dependent and coastal- related uses
maximum of 0.7 shall
and visitor - serving uses, as well as allow for the
be used for
development of mixed -use structures with
nonresidential
Mixed Use Water
residential uses above the ground floor.
purposes and a
Related —MU -W
Freestanding residential uses shall be
maximum of 0.8 for
prohibited. Overnight accommodations (e.g.
residential.
hotels, motels, hostels) are allowed. Limited
Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (e.g.
Nonresidential only:
time shares, fractionals, condominium- hotels)
Floor area to land area
may be permitted in lieu of allowable
ratio of 0.5.
residential development provided the use is
above the ground floor.
Residential only: 15
units per acre per net
acre.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
24
Table 2. 1. 1 -1 Land Use Plan Categories
te
Public, Semi-Public, and Institutional
Not applicable. School
districts are exempted
from local land use
controls and
development limits are
The PF category is intended to provide public
not specified.
facilities, including public schools, cultural
Development
Public Facilities—PF
institutions, government facilities, libraries
intensities for other
community centers, public hospitals, and public
public institutions are
utilities.
more appropriately
determined by their
function rather than
floor areas, such as
number of hospital
beds and number of
students.
Private Institutions N
The PI category is intended to provide for
privately owned facilities that serve the public,
including places for religious assembly, private
schools, health care, cultural institutions,
PI -A
0.00 -0.30 FAR
PI -B
0.00 -0.75 FAR
PI-C
museums, yacht clubs, congregate homes, and
0-00 – 1.00 FAR
comnarahle facilities.
Open spaces may
include incidental
The OS category is intended to provide areas
buildings, such as
Opens Space—OS
for a range of public and private uses to protect,
maintenance
equipment and supply
maintain, and enhance the community's natural
storage, which are not
resources.
traditionally included in
determining intensity
limits.
Not applicable for
public uses. Private
uses in this category
may include incidental
The PR category applies to land used or
buildings, such as
proposed for active public or private
maintenance
Parks and Recreation—
recreational use. Permitted uses include parks
equipment sheds,
supply storage, and
PR
(both active and passive), golf courses ' marina
restrooms, not included
support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs
in determining intensity
and courts, private recreation, and similar
limits. For golf
facilities.
courses, these uses
may also include
support facilities for
grounds maintenance
employees.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-5
Table 2.1.1-1 . Use
Plan Categories
Uses
, ",'li,.Derisft
(1if%ensf ,
La'ndse „.
The TS category is intended to address the
use, management, and protection of tidelands
Tidelands and
and submerged lands of Newport Bay and the
Submerged Lands —TS
Pacific Ocean immediately adjacent to the City
Not applicable.
of Newport Beach. The category is generally
not applied to historic tidelands and submerged
lands that are resent) filled or reclaimed.
Notes.'
Residential densities are calculated on net acreage, exclusive of existing and new rights -of -way, public
pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks.
Floor area ratios (FAR) are calculated by the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot
area, but do not include floor areas of parking structures.
Lifeguard rescue boats
2.1.2 District/Corridor Policies
Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses,
density /intensity, physical form and character, and /or environmental setting.
Newport Beach's coastal zone districts are in transition as existing viable districts are
enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided
to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs.
Corridors share common characteristics of districts by their identifiable functional
role, land use mix, density /intensity, physical form and character, and /or
environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow
depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by
traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. Their shallow depths make
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-6
them unsuitable for many contemporary forms of commercial development that
require large building footprints and extensive parking.
Policy 2.1.24. Development in each district and corridor shall adhere to
policies for land use type and densityfintensity contained in
Table 2.1.1 -1, except as modified in Sections 2.1.3 to 2.1.8.
2.1.3 West Newport
The West Newport Coast Highway Corridor extends from Summit Street to just past
60th Street. It is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving
the adjoining Newport Shores residential neighborhood, the West Newport
residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. Commercial
uses are concentrated on the north side of Coast Highway at the Orange Street
intersection and east of Cedar Street to the Semeniuk Slough. Intervening areas are
developed with a mix of multi - family apartments and, west of Grant Avenue, mobile
and manufactured homes.
Residential rn West Newport Commemiatin West Newport
Primary commercial uses include community- related retail such as a dry cleaners,
liquor store, deli, and convenience stores, as well as a few visitor - serving motels,
dine -in, family -style restaurants, and fast -food establishments. Generally, they are
developed on shallow parcels of substandard size and configuration due to past
widening of West Coast Highway and contain insufficient parking. Many of the
commercial buildings appear to have been constructed in the 1960's to 1980's,
although some motels have been recently upgraded.
A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army
Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single - family homes outside the area
are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many
of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and
Local Coastal Program
Coastal land Use Plan
2 -7
a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to
the proposed Orange Coast River Park.
Coast Highway fronting properties in West Newport will be improved by
concentrating local and visitor - serving retail in two centers at Prospect Street and
Orange Street with expanded parking, enhancing existing and allowing additional
housing on intervening parcels, and developing a clearly defined entry at the western
edge with Huntington Beach. The latter may include improvements that would
support the proposed Orange Coast River Park.
Policies:
2.1.3 -1. Work with community groups and the County to facilitate the
acquisition of a portion or all of the Western Entry Parcel (designated
RM /OS) as open space, which may be used as a staging area for
Orange Coast River Park with public parking, public park - related uses,
and access to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi- family
residential on portions of the property not used for open space, public
parking, and public park - related uses. Require the siting and design
of new development, including landscaping and public access, to
maintain buffers of sufficient size to protect sensitive or rare
resources including but not limited to those within the Semeniuk
Slough wetland against significant disruption of habitat values.
2.1.3 -2. Allow local and visitor - serving retail consistent with the CV category in
two centers at Prospect Street and Orange Street.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -8
2.1.4 Mariners' Mile
Mariners' Mile is a heavily traveled
segment of Coast Highway extending
from the Arches Bridge on the west to
Dover Drive on the east. It is developed
with a mix of highway- oriented retail and
marine related commercial uses. The
latter are primarily concentrated on bay -
fronting properties and include boat sales
and storage, sailing schools, marinas,
visitor- serving restaurants, and
comparable uses. A large site is
developed with the Balboa Bay Club and
Resort, a hotel, private club, and
apartments located on City tidelands. A
number of properties contain non - marine
commercial uses, offices, and a multi-
story residential building.
The vitality of the Mariners' Mile Corridor
will be enhanced by establishing a series
of distinct retail, mixed -use, and visitor -
serving centers. Harbor- fronting
properties would accommodate a mix of
visitor- serving retail, marine - related Mariners' Mile
businesses and vertically integrated
mixed -use structures. View and public
access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor would be required, with a public
pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the Harbor frontage. Parcels
on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between Riverside Avenue and the
southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a pedestrian - oriented mixed -
use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing. Sidewalks
would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster pedestrian activity.
Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the east and west
of the village would provide for retail, marine - related, and office uses. Streetscape
amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its appearance
and identity.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -9
Policies:
2.1.4 -1. For properties located on the inland side of Coast Highway in the
Mariners' Mile Corridor that are designated as MU -H, (a) the Coast
Highway frontages shall be developed for marine - related and highway -
oriented general commercial uses in accordance with CM and CG
categories; and (b) portions of properties to the rear of the commercial
frontage may be developed for free - standing neighborhood- serving
retail, mufti- family residential units, or mixed -use buildings that
integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor in accordance
with the CN, RM , CV, or MU -V categories respectively.
2.1.4 -2. For bay- fronting properties that are designated as MU -W, encourage
marine - related and visitor - serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional,
and recreational uses. Vertically integrated mixed use structures are
allowed as described below. Permitted uses include those permitted
by the CM, CV, and MU-V categories. On sites developed with
mixed -use structures, a minimum of 50 percent of the permitted
square footage shall be devoted to non - residential uses. Mixed -use
structures may only be developed on sites with 200 feet or more of
street frontage along Coast Highway and, in aggregate, no more
than 50 percent of the waterfront land area along Coast Highway
between the Arches Bridge and the Boy Scout Sea Base may be
developed with mixed use structures.
2.1.4 -3. Permit development intensities in areas designated as CG to be
increased to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to
accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide
sufficient parking.
2.1.4 -4. For bay- fronting properties that are designated as CV or CM,
encourage marine - related and visitor - serving retail, restaurant,
hotel /motel, institutional, and recreational uses.
2.1.4 -5. Development shall be designed and planned to achieve high levels
of architectural quality and compatibility among on -site and off -site
uses. Adequate pedestrian, non - automobile and vehicular circulation
and parking shall be provided.
2.1.4 -6. Require sufficient area be provided for individual uses to prevent
fragmentation and assure each use's viability, quality, and
compatibility with adjoining uses.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -10
2.1.4 -7. For bay- fronting properties, provide plazas and other open spaces
that protect existing and provide new view corridors and access from
Coast Highway to the Harbor.
2.1.4 -8. For bay- fronting properties, require that development on the Bay
frontage implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors
including the development of a public pedestrian promenade along
the bayfront.
2.1.4 -9. For bay- fronting properties require that buildings be located and sites
designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay
from the Coast Highway in accordance with the following principles,
as appropriate:
■ Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors
to the Harbor
■ Modulation of building volume and mass
■ Variation of building heights
■ Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see- through"
elements in addition to the defined open corridor
■ Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other
nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor
■ Prevention of the appearance of the harbor being walled off from
the public right -of -way
■ Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on
adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors
■ Encourage adjoining property owners to combine their view
corridors to achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would be
achieved independently
■ A site - specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to
determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view
and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be
subject to approval in the Coastal Development Permit process.
2.1.5 Balboa Peninsula
Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village are to be
enhanced as distinct pedestrian- oriented centers of Balboa Peninsula that would be
interconnected through improved streetscapes along Newport/Balboa Boulevard, a
waterfront promenade on Newport Harbor, and cross -access between the Harbor
and beachfront. Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village would contain a
mix of visitor - serving, retail, small overnight accommodation facilities, and housing.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -11
Throughout the Peninsula, priority is established for the retention of marine - related
uses.
Lido Village
Lido Village is primarily developed with
commercial uses including grocery
stores, restaurants, salons, home
furnishings, apparel, and other specialty
shops. It also includes Lido Marina
Village, a pedestrian- oriented waterfront
development that includes visitor - serving
commercial uses, specialty stores, and
marine uses.
Movie theater in Lido Village
Cannery Village
Pedestrian -oriented retail use in Lido Village
Lido Marina Village has experienced a
high number of building vacancies and
many retail stores are underperforming.
Parking is limited. Multiple property
ownerships have traditionally inhibited
cohesive and integrated development.
Lido Village has a unique location at the
turning basin in Newport Harbor. The
channel is wider than in other locations,
providing an opportunity for waterfront
commercial uses that will not negatively
impact residential uses across the
channel.
Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating
industry and contains a mix of small shops, art galleries, professional offices, and
service establishments. Marine - related commercial (boat sales) and marine - related
industrial uses (boat repair) are also found in the area. Redevelopment of properties
for residential, loft, and mixed residential and commercial uses, including live /work
facilities, appears to be an emerging trend. Older developments include some
single - family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots.
Although the residential component of mixed -use projects has performed well, there
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -12
has been less success in attracting the
commercial uses envisioned for the area
particularly on the waterfront.
The goal in Cannery Village is a pedestrian -
oriented residential neighborhood that
provides opportunities for live /work facilities
and supporting retail uses. Commercial or
mixed -use buildings would be developed at
street intersections with intervening parcels
developed for mixed -use or free - standing
housing and a mix of marine - related,
residential uses on the Bay frontage, and Cannery V llage boardwalk
retail and visitor - serving uses along Newport Boulevard Corridor.
McFadden Square
McFadden Square surrounds the Newport
Pier and extends between the ocean front
and harbor. Commercial land uses are
largely concentrated in the strips along
Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with
residential along the ocean front and marine -
related uses fronting the harbor. Numerous
visitor- serving uses include restaurants,
beach hotels, tourist - oriented shops (t -shirt
shops, bike rentals, and surf shops), as well
as service operations and facilities that serve
the Peninsula. There are several bars in the
area with some featuring live music,
especially along the ocean front.
McFadden Square Plaza
Historically, the area has been known for its marine - related industries such as
shipbuilding and repair facilities and boat storage on the harbor, some of which have
been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Public parking is available in three
lots, which primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -13
Newport Pier
The goal in McFadden Square is to revitalized the area as a pedestrian- oriented
village that reflects its location on the ocean, pier, and bay front, serving visitors and
local residents
Lido Peninsula
The MLI-W is applied to the Lido Peninsula to provide for the horizontal intermixing of
recreational and marine - related and residential uses, in accordance with CM and RM
categories respectively.
Lido Peninsula commercial
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -14
Balboa Village
Balboa Village is the historic center for
recreational and social activities on the
Peninsula. It has had a strong marine
heritage, and has attracted fishermen,
recreational boaters, summer residents,
and beachgoers. Many of the retail
uses are visitor - oriented and seasonal
in nature, including a 'fun zone' along
Edgewater Place that contains
entertainment uses. Marine - related
commercial uses, including ferries to
Balboa and Catalina Islands and harbor Balboa Village
tours, are present in the area. In
general, Balboa Village is pedestrian- oriented with articulated building facades, and
signage that is pedestrian scale. The Balboa Village core is surrounded by
residences, with isolated pockets of commercial uses scattered along Balboa
Boulevard. Peninsula Park also serves the area.
Balboa Village and the greater Peninsula have experienced a transition to year -
round residential occupancy while the visitor uses have continued. Cumulatively,
there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and
marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not
thrive throughout the year.
Balboa Village will continue to serve as the primary center of the lower Peninsula,
surrounded by residential neighborhoods along and flanking Balboa Boulevard. The
goal is an economically viable pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents,
visitors, and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and
recreation.
Main Street — Balboa Village
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -15
Policies:
2.1.5 -1. For bay- fronting properties that are designated as MU -W, marine-
related uses may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential
on the upper floors. Permitted uses include those permitted by the
CM, CV, and MU -V categories. In the MU -W designation, free-
standing and ground floor residential shall not be permitted in Lido
Marina Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa
Island.
2.1.5 -2. Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the
Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character,
including visitor - serving and retail commercial, small lodging facilities
(bed and breakfasts, inns), and mixed -use buildings that integrate
residential above the ground floor with retail uses.
2.1.5 -3. Discourage the development of new office uses on the ground floor of
buildings in Lido Village that do not attract customer activity to improve
the area's pedestrian character.
2.1.5 -4. In Lido Marina Village (designated as MU -W), marine - related uses
may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential on the upper
floors. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and
MU -V categories. Free - standing residential shall not be permitted.
2.1.5 -5. For interior parcels in Cannery Village and at 15th Street (designated
as MU -H), permit mixed -use structures, where the ground floor shall be
restricted to nonresidential uses along the street frontage such as retail
sales and restaurants and the rear and upper floors used for residential
including seniors units and overnight accommodations (comparable to
MU -V). Mixed -use or commercial buildings shall be required on
parcels at street intersections with intervening parcels developed for
mixed -use or free - standing housing.
2.1.5 -6. Allow retail and visitor - serving commercial along the Newport
Boulevard Corridor consistent with the CV category.
2.1.5 -7. Accommodate visitor- and local- serving uses that take advantage of
McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail,
restaurants, and small scale overnight accommodations, as well as
mixed -use buildings that integrate upper floor residential with ground
level retail.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -16
2.1.5 -8. On the Lido Peninsula, CM development shall occupy 30 percent of
the total land area and residential development shall occupy 70
percent of the land area. One residential dwelling unit is allowed for
each 2,900 square feet of lot area.
2.1.5 -9. On the Balboa Village bay frontage (designated as CV), prioritize
water- dependent, marine - related retail and services and visitor - serving
retail.
2.1.5 -10. For the Balboa Village core properties that are designated as MU -V,
encourage local- and visitor- serving retail commercial and mixed -use
buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail or office uses
that attract customer activity and improve pedestrian character.
2.1.5 -11. Development and use of lands designated CV (Visitor Serving
Commercial) within Balboa Village may include a component that is
a visitor serving private institutional facility such as a nautical
museum, or similar visitor serving private institutional use.
2.1.6 Balboa Island
Marine Avenue is a two -block retail district on
Balboa Island. Marine Avenue reflects the unique
characteristics of the Balboa Island community.
Balboa Island is known for its casual and laid -
back lifestyle and Marine Avenue serves as its
town square. Marine Avenue has a number of
small - scale, locally -owned businesses, including
restaurants, retail shops, art galleries, and
services. This small -town downtown atmosphere
has made Marine Avenue a popular visitor
destination. Marine Avenue
Although Marine Avenue does not have the typical "tourist- driven" mix of shops and
businesses, visitors are drawn there to experience a Southern California coastal
island community. The number and variety of businesses cannot be supported by
the local economy alone and without local support, most of these businesses could
not survive year- round. Therefore, the continued success of the retail economy on
Marine Avenue is contingent on businesses that serve both local residents and
visitors.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -17
Policy 2.1.6 -1. On Marine Avenue and Agate Avenue (designated as MU -W),
marine - related uses may be intermixed with buildings that
provide residential on the upper floors. Permitted uses include
those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU -V category. Free-
standing residential shall not be permitted.
2.1.7 Newport Dunes
The Newport Dunes consists of 100 acres of
State tidelands property on the Upper Newport
Bay held in trust by the County of Orange. This
area is designated PR and is intended for
recreational and visitor - serving uses. Land uses
and development limits are established pursuant
to the Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement.
The site is currently developed with a 406 -space
recreational vehicle park, a 450 -slip marina, a
restaurant, dry boat storage, boat launching
facilities, surface parking, and beach day use Newport Dunes Aquatic Park
facilities. This area also includes an undeveloped
site for a 275 -room hotel with up to 500,000 square feet of floor area, 27,500 square
feet of floor area for restaurants, and 5,000 square feet of floor area for retail
commercial.
Policies:
2.1.7 -1. Protect, and if feasible, expand and enhance, the variety of
recreational and visitor - serving uses. Particular attention should be
given to provision of lower cost uses.
2.1.7 -2. New development shall provide for the protection of the water quality of
the bay and adjacent natural habitats. New development shall be
designed and sited to minimize impacts to public views of the water
and coastal bluffs.
2.1.8 Balboa Bay Tennis Club
Located in Newport Center, the Balboa Bay Tennis Club is designated MU -H /PR.
This is in recognition of the private recreational tennis courts and the potential
development of short-term rental bungalows and a limited number of single - family
homes.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -18
Policy 2.1.8 -1. Allow the horizontal intermixing of short -term rental units and
single - family homes with the expanded tennis club faculties.
Permitted uses include those permitted by the MU -H and PR
categories.
2.1.9 Coastal Land Use Plan Map
The Coastal Land Use Plan Map depicts the land use category for each property and
is intended to provide a graphic representation of policies relating to the location,
type, density, and intensity of all land uses in the coastal zone.
Policy 2.1.9 -1. Land uses and new development in the coastal zone shall be
consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all
applicable LCP policies and regulations.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -19
2.2 General Development Policies
2.2.1 Location of New Development
Coastal Act policies related to the location of new development that are relevant to Newport
Beach include the following:
30250 (a). New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division.. shall be
located within, contiguous with, or in dose proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such
areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant
adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for
agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area
have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1)
facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential
development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation
within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development
with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high -rise office buildings,
and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by
correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite
recreational facilities to serve the new development.
The Coastal Act provides for the protection of coastal resources by requiring that
new development be located in areas in close proximity to existing development with
available public services to minimize the impacts associated with the extension of
infrastructure and services. Most of the areas of Newport Beach's coastal zone were
developed during the first half of the 20th Century. Therefore, new development
within the coastal zone will occur in the form of redevelopment or infill development
within or adjacent to existing developed areas. These areas have adequate public
services or are capable of having public services extended or expanded without
significant adverse effects on coastal resources.
Banning Ranch
The only exception is the 505 -acre
Banning Ranch property. Save
for oil field facilities, Banning
Ranch is undeveloped, but is
contiguous to the developed areas
of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa,
and Huntington Beach. Banning
Ranch is designated as a deferred
certification area due to
unresolved land use and resource
protection issues (see Section
2.2.4).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -20
Policies:
2.2.1 -1. Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within
and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal
zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource
protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2.2.1 -2. Require new development be located in areas with adequate
public services or in areas that are capable of having public
services extended or expanded without significant adverse
effects on coastal resources.
2.2.1 -3 Provide commercial facilities within or adjoining residential
development or in other areas that will minimize the use of
coastal access roads.
2.2.2 Coastal Development Review
In order to ensure that development
within the coastal zone is consistent
with the LCP and any applicable
policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act, the City will require a coastal
development permit prior to
commencement of any development in
the coastal zone, with the exceptions of
developments in areas where the
Coastal Commission retains permit
jurisdiction, developments where an
amendment to a Coastal Commission-
issued permit is required, developments
determined to be categorically excluded
according to the categories and
s.'
Beachfront residential development on the Balboa Peninsula
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -21
standards established by the Coastal Commission, and developments determined to
be excluded from the coastal development permit requirements pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 30610 and its implementing regulations. Development
may also be excluded from permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code
Sections 30005 (b), 30608 and 30600 (e), which address nuisance abatement,
vested rights and emergency circumstances, respectively.
Policies:
2.2.2 -1. After certification of the LCP, require a coastal development permit for all
development within the coastal zone, subject to exceptions provided for
under the Coastal Act as specified in the LCP.
2.2.2 -2. Incorporate coastal development permit procedures into the
implementation plan to ensure that all public and private development in
the coastal zone is consistent with the LCP.
2.2.2 -3. Prior to approval of any coastal development permit, the City shall make
the finding that the development conforms to the policies and
requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2.2.2 -4. Implement building design and siting regulations to protect coastal
resources and public access through height, setback, floor area, lot
coverage, building bulk, and other property development standards of the
Zoning Code intended to control building placement, height, and bulk.
Beachfront homes in West Newport
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -22
2.2.3 Exclusion Areas
Excerpts from specific Coastal Act sections related to exclusion areas that are relevant to
Newport Beach include the following:
30610. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, no coastal development permit shall be required pursuant to this
chapter for the following types of development and in the following areas:
(e) Any category of development. or any category of development within a specifically defined geographic area, that the
commission. after public hearing, and by two-thirds vote of its appointed members, has described or identified and with
respect to which the commission has found that there is no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources or on public access to. or along, the coast and, where the exclusion precedes certification
of the applicable local coastal program, that the exclusion will not impair the ability of local government to prepare a local
coastal program.
Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act provides for a category of development, or a
category of development within a specifically defined geographic area, to be
excluded from the coastal development permit provisions of the Coastal Act provided
there is no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources or on public access to, or along, the coast.
Residential Areas
On June 14, 1977, the Coastal
Commission adopted Categorical
Exclusion Order E -77 -5, at the request of
the City of Newport Beach pursuant to
Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act.
The categorical exclusion is for the
demolition and /or construction of all
single - family and two- family residences
and their appurtenant facilities in most
residentially -zoned districts within the
City of Newport Beach within the coastal
zone. The categorical exclusion,
however, does not include the first row of
lots adjacent to the beach, bay or Infll residential development in Corona del Mar
wetlands nor is the categorical exclusion
applicable to major undeveloped residential sites within the coastal zone, Planned
Community zoned districts or gated communities within the City. In Resolution No.
9190, the City Council found and determined that the exclusion applies only to
Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula, Cameo Highlands, Cameo Shores, Corona del
Mar, Corona Highlands, Irvine Terrace, Lido Isle, Shorecliffs, the Upper Bay and
West Newport. Pursuant to Section 13249 (b) of the California Code of Regulations,
a categorical exclusion order automatically terminates upon the effective date of the
delegation of development review authority to a local government. Therefore,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -23
Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5 will terminate when the LCP is certified and
adopted.
The categorical exclusion was adopted in recognition that the residential areas in
question contained little vacant land and that new development consisted primarily of
the conversion of single - family dwellings to two- family dwellings and the replacement
and improvement of existing single - family and two- family residences. These
residential areas consist of well - established neighborhoods. Development in the 27
years since the adoption of the categorical exclusion has continued to be in the form
of redevelopment or infill projects. The permitted residential unit type and maximum
density of the Coastal Land Use Plan reflect the predominant form of development in
these areas. Residential floor areas and building heights have been strictly
controlled since the early 1970's to insure that the scale, size, and character of new
development is compatible with existing development in the surrounding area.
Therefore, the City will seek a new categorical exclusion for these residential areas
concurrently with certification of the LCP.
Commercial Areas
The Corona del Mar commercial area
is generally located along Coast r
Highway between Avocado Street
(including the southwest corner) and
Hazel Drive. Only the south side of
Coast Highway is located within the
coastal zone. It has been zoned for
commercial uses since 1936 and
developed as a business district for
over 75 years. The commercial area Is
completely urbanized and new
development is limited to a maximum
floor area to land area ratio of 0.75. Coast Highway in Corona del Mar
Unlike other coastal commercial areas
that largely serve the visitor market, Corona del Mar has the broadest base of local -
serving retailers. The portion of the Corona del Mar commercial area located in the
coastal zone is located 1,000 to 2,500 feet from the shoreline. Given this
commercial area's considerable distance from the shoreline and minimal use by
coastal zone users, there is no potential for significant adverse effects, either
individually or cumulatively, on public access to the coast or on coastal resources.
Therefore, the City should seek a categorical exclusion for this commercial area
concurrently with certification of the LCP.
Policies:
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -24
2.2.3 -1. Pursuant to Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act, request a categorical
exclusion for the residential areas: Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula,
Cameo Highlands, Cameo Shores, Corona del Mar, Corona Highlands,
Irvine Terrace, Lido Island, Newport Center, Newport Heights, Newport
Shores, Shorecliffs, Upper Newport Bay, and West Newport.
2.2.3 -2. Pursuant to Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act, request a categorical
exclusion for the portion of the Corona del Mar commercial area located
in the coastal zone, which consists of all commercial properties on the
south side of Coast Highway between Avocado Street (including the
southwest corner) and Hazel Drive.
2.2.3 -3. Incorporate the terms and conditions of categorical exclusions into the
implementation plan.
2.2.3 -4. Provide a graphical representation of the terms of the categorical
exclusion order by depicting the subject properties on a Permit and
Appeal Jurisdiction Map and incorporate into the implementation plan. In
case a conflict exists between the Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map
and the text of the categorical exclusion order, the text of the categorical
exclusion order shall govern the terms of the exclusion.
2.2.4 Deferred Certification Areas
Deferred Certification Area (DCA) refers to an area which has not been officially
segmented for purposes of LCP preparation and where both the land use plan and
implementation plan have been deferred to some future date in order to avoid delay
in certifying the balance of the LCP. The Coastal Commission retains permit
jurisdiction in all deferred certification areas.
Banning Ranch. Banning Ranch consists of 505 acres located north of the
Semeniuk Slough and Coast Highway West and east of the Santa Ana River. Nearly
all of Banning Ranch (454 acres) is located within the City's sphere of influence in
unincorporated Orange County. Oil and gas operations are conducted throughout
the County portion of the property (West Newport Oil Field) pursuant to California
Coastal Commission Exemption E -144. These operations consist of 483 producing,
idle, injection, and abandoned well sites and related service roads, pipelines,
storage, and other facilities. The property contains a number of sensitive habitat
types, including southern coastal bluff scrub, alkali meadow, southern coastal salt
marsh, southern black willow forest, coastal brackish marsh, and vernal pools. The
property also contains steep coastal bluffs along the southern and western edges of
the mesa. The bluff faces have been eroded in some areas to form a number of
gullies and ravines. Future land uses for Banning Ranch are currently under review
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -25
as part of a comprehensive update
of the City of Newport Beach
General Plan.
Banning Ranch shall remain a
deferred certification area until such
time as the future land uses for the
property are resolved and policies
are adopted to address the future of
the oil and gas operations, public
access, and the protection of the
coastal resources on the property.
Policies:
Banning Ranch
2.2.4 -1. Designate the Banning Ranch property as an area of deferred
certification until such time as the future land uses for the property are
resolved and policies are adopted to address the future of the oil and
gas operations and the protection of the coastal resources on the
property.
2.2.4 -2. Depict the boundaries of deferred certification areas on the Coastal
Land Use Plan Map and other applicable LCP maps.
2.2.4 -3. The Coastal Commission shall retain permit jurisdiction in all deferred
certification areas.
2.2.5 Nonconforming Structures and Uses
As one of the older coastal communities, Newport Beach has land uses and
improvements that do not conform to the standards of the LCP or other policies and
regulations that have been adopted over the years. This section is intended to
establish policies to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses to the
maximum extent feasible and to bring these structures and uses into conformity in a
timely manner, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property owners.
Policies:
2.2.5 -1. Legal nonconforming structures shall be brought into conformity in an
equitable, reasonable, and timely manner as rebuilding occurs. Limited
renovations that improve the physical quality and character of the
buildings may be allowed. Rebuilding after catastrophic damage or
destruction due to a natural event, an act of public enemy, or accident may
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -26
be allowed in limited circumstances that do not conflict with other policies
and of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2.2.5 -2. In the older commercial districts of Balboa Village and Corona del Mar,
allow existing commercial buildings that exceed current intensity limits to
be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to no more than their existing
intensity only where a finding can be made that the development will not
perpetuate or establish a physical impediment to public access to coastal
resources, nor adversely impact coastal views or biological resources.
Where such development cannot meet current parking standards, such
approval may only be granted if the proposed development includes at
least as much parking as the existing development, and provides for or
facilitates the use of alternative modes of transportation such as ride -
sharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycling or walking to the
extent feasible.
2.2.5 -3. When proposed development would involve demolition or replacement of
50 percent or more of the exterior walls of an existing structure that is
legally non - conforming due to a coastal resource protection standard, the
entire structure must be made to conform with all current development
standards and applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan..
2.2.5 -4. The enlargement or intensification of legally established nonconforming
uses shall be limited to only those uses normally permitted by right or by
the approval of a use permit, but which were made nonconforming by
additional regulations of the district in which they are located. Such
enlargement or intensification shall be subject to discretionary review and
approval by the City and shall not increase the degree of the use's
nonconformity.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -27
2.3 Visitor - serving and Recreational Development
2.3.1 Commercial
Newport Beach has thirty-seven distinct
commercial areas within the coastal zone. These
areas range from small strip commercial areas to
large hotel complexes. Most of the coastal zone's
commercial development is in the City's older
business districts. These business districts were
originally developed to serve harbor- related
businesses and industries and to serve the City's
original residential areas. Over the years, portions
of these business districts have been redeveloping
to visitor - oriented retail, water - related businesses,
recreational uses, and mixed
commercial /residential projects. The Coastal Land
Use Plan allows for the continuation of this trend,
while continuing to provide businesses that serve
the needs of residents and are essential to the
harbor operations.
Oceanfront Boardwalk near Newport Pier
Visitor - serving and recreational activities are an important part of the character and
economy of Newport Beach. In 2003, Newport Beach had 14 hotels, motels,
timeshares, and bed & breakfast inns in the coastal zone and 18 citywide. These
facilities provide a total of 2,287 rooms in the coastal zone and 3,520 rooms citywide.
In FY 2001, Newport Beach received 7.2 million visitors {people other than those
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -28
who reside or work here). Over 80 percent of the City's visitors are here for
purposes of leisure and the vast majority are day visitors.
Other visitor - serving and recreational
facilities located within commercial areas
include restaurants, snack bars, boat
rentals, sports equipment rentals, boat
tours of the harbor, boat launching facili-
ties, amusement and recreation facilities,
and numerous shops selling specialized
merchandise. Many of these facilities
have become tourist attractions in their
own right, such as the Balboa Pavilion,
the Fun Zone, Balboa Ferry, the entire
Marine Avenue area on Balboa Island,
and certain restaurants.
Edgewater boardwalk in Balboa Village
Most of the lands suitable for visitor - serving and recreational uses are in the
commercial areas surrounding and adjacent to the west end of Newport Harbor.
Most of the waterfront land in this area has been designated for recreational and
marine uses. Also, individual hotel and motel sites on the Balboa Peninsula, in West
Newport, and adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay and other open space areas are
designated for visitor - serving uses.
A 2002 retail commercial market analysis verifies that the City's main coastal zone
commercial areas largely serve the visitor market. In Balboa Village, Balboa Island,
McFadden Square, and Mariner's Mile, visitors (people from outside each study
area) account for the vast majority of retail sales. On Balboa Island, retail sales are
dominated by apparel stores, specialty retail stores, and restaurants, which generally
sell to tourists and other non - residents. In McFadden Square and Balboa Village,
which are adjacent to beaches, restaurants are the single most prominent retail sales
category, followed by apparel and sporting goods stores that primarily cater to
visitors.
Visitor Spending in Coastal Zone
Commercial Area
Percentage of Retail
Spending By Visitors
Balboa Island
85.1%
Balboa Village
80.9%
Corona del Mar
75.8%
Lido - Cannery
48.0%
McFadden Square
86.0%
Mariner's Mile
96.6%
Source.: Newport Beach General Plan Update Retail Commercial
Market Analysis, December 2002.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -29
The lower percentage of retail spending by visitors in Lido - Cannery is due primarily
to the presence of two large grocery stores that serve West Newport, Lido Isle, and
the Balboa Peninsula and constitute over half of the retail sales. The extremely high
percentage of retail spending by visitors in Mariner's Mile is due primarily to the high
concentration of restaurants, entertainment boat operations, automobile and boat
dealers, and marine- related retail stores.
While the coastal zone commercial areas are
heavily oriented to the visitor market, some
commercial areas are also underperforming
economically. McFadden Square and Balboa
Village have sales per square foot that are below
national averages in nearly every retail category.
Many businesses have to drastically reduce their
hours of operation or close down completely
during the winter months. This often gives an
impression of economic stagnation and can
detract from the ability of the commercial district to
attract customers. Therefore, these areas should
continue to be permitted a wider range of
commercial uses in order to maintain year - around
economic viability.
While a high proportion of spending in Corona del
McFadden Square shops on the Oceanfront Mar is by visitors, many of the categories
Boardwalk represented are not necessarily visitor - oriented.
About half of the retail sales are generated by grocery stores and fumiture, home
furnishings, and home improvement stores. This indicates that much of the retail
spending in Corona del Mar is from customers from neighboring communities, but
who are not necessarily coastal zone visitors. This is to be expected since the
portion of the Corona del Mar commercial area located in the coastal zone is 1,000
to 2,500 feet from the shoreline.
Policies:
2.3.1 -1. Permit visitor - serving retail and eating and drinking establishments in
all commercially designated areas.
2.3.1 -2. Continue to provide waterfront - oriented commercial uses, including
eating and drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment
establishments, as a means of providing public access to the
waterfront.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -30
2.3.1 -3. On land designated for visitor - serving and/or recreational uses, give
priority to visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to
enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over other
commercial uses, except for agriculture and coastal- dependent
industry.
2.3.1 -4. Protect oceanfront land designated for visitor - serving and /or
recreational uses for recreational use and development unless present
and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational
activities that could be accommodated on the property is already
adequately provided for in the area.
2.3.1 -5. Protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of
their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for
recreational uses.
2.3.1 -6. Where feasible, reserve upland areas necessary to support coastal
recreational uses for such uses.
2.3.1 -7. Give priority to visitor - serving and recreational uses in the mixed -use
areas of the Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island.
2.3.1 -8. LCP Amendment No. 2005 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -06 Part A) to the Coastal
Land Use Plan changing a portion of land, not to exceed 4.25 acres in
size, designated Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) in Newport Center
to a residential designation shall require a payment of a fee to mitigate
for the loss of visitor - serving land. The mitigation fee shall be used for
the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor -
serving uses at Crystal Cove State Park. The mitigation fee shall be in
the amount of five million (5,000,000.00) dollars to off -set the loss of
the priority land use in Newport Center. The mitigation fee shall be
paid prior to issuance of any coastal development permit granted for
any residential project within the newly designated area and to an
entity, identified by the permitting agency, capable of implementing the
mitigation at Crystal Cove State Park. Until paid in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the coastal development permit, the
amount shall be increased every July 1st by an amount calculated on
the basis of the percentage change from the year 2007 in the
California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers as determined
by the entity that grants the coastal development permit.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -31
2.3.1 -9. In Mariner's Mile, require that development on the Bay frontage
implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors. Pursue
development of a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront.
2.3.1 -10. Support continued operation of passenger /sightseeing boats,
passenger /fishing boats ( "day boats "), and long -term boat rentals and
sales.
2.3.1 -11. Support continued short-term rental of small boats while encouraging
vendors to teach customers how to safely operate the watercraft.
2.3.1 -12. Support continued operation of entertainment and tour boats subject
to reasonable regulations designed to ensure the operations don't
have an adverse impact, such as unsafe navigation, impaired water
quality, reduced visual quality, excessive noise, unsafe street traffic
conditions, or parking shortages on the environment and land uses
surrounding the harbor.
2.3.1 -13. Any proposal to demolish existing overnight accommodations shall be
required to demonstrate that rehabilitation of the units is not feasible.
Any hotel /motel rooms for which a certificate of occupancy has been
issued on or before the effective date of adoption of Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -07) shall not be
permitted to convert to a Limited Use Overnight Visitor
Accommodation, except as provided in Policy 2.3.3 -7.
2.3.2 Open Space and Tidelands /Submerged Lands
Newport Beach's open space designated
areas in the coastal zone include beaches,
parks, golf courses, yacht clubs, and
environmentally sensitive habitat areas and
other natural resources. These areas
provide a wide range of recreational and
visitor - serving uses and facilities.
Nearly all of the oceanfront land, including
the entire Balboa Peninsula, is public beach.
In total, there are over 276 acres of public
beaches on the shoreline. There are also
approximately 415 acres of recreational and
view parks on or adjacent to the shoreline.
Rowing in the Upper Newport Bay
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -32
Tidelands and submerged lands are State lands held in trust by the City of Newport
Beach, the County of Orange or State resource agencies. These lands are subject
to the public trust doctrine and are limited to public trust uses, such as navigation,
fisheries, commerce, public access, water- oriented recreation, open space and
environmental protection. The waters of Newport Bay and of the Pacific Ocean
adjacent to Newport Beach are used for a wide variety of recreational activities,
including boating, diving, excursions, fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, parasailing,
rowing, sailing, surfing, swimming, and wind surfing. Development in the form of
marinas, moorings, piers, and equipment rentals provide recreational opportunities
and access to the water.
The Newport Dunes Aquatic Park is on 100 acres of State tidelands property held in
trust by the County of Orange. The park is leased to a private operator and provides
a recreational vehicle park, campgrounds, a marina, boat launching and storage
facilities, beach day use facilities, and a swimming lagoon.
Policies:
2.3.2 -1. Continue to use public beaches for public recreational uses and
prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and
enjoyment of coastal resources.
2.3.2 -2. Continue to designate lands to provide visitor- serving and recreational
facilities and view parks on or adjacent to the shoreline.
Pirate's Cove
2.3.2 -3. Cooperate with the County of Orange to continue to provide a variety
of visitor- serving and recreational uses at the Newport Dunes,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -33
including recreational vehicle park and campground areas as a means
of providing alternative and lower cost overnight accommodations.
2.3.2 -4. Continue to administer the use of tidelands and submerged lands in a
manner consistent with the tidelands trust.
2.3.3 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities
Camping at Newport Dunes
A significant number of single - family
homes, condominiums, and apartments
serve as overnight visitor
accommodations. Each year, hundreds
of dwelling units in coastal zone
residential areas are rented on a
weekend, weekly or monthly basis. Most
of these dwelling units have beach or bay
front locations or are located within
walking distance to the water. Because
they typically provide additional sleeping
accommodations and fully equipped
kitchens, they provide an accommodation
option comparable to or less expensive
than staying in hotels and going out to west Newport motel
restaurants for meals. Particularly for
large families, these dwelling units provide an affordable alternative to hotels and
motels. In 2003, weekly rates are as low as $900. The City requires short-term
lodging permits for dwelling units rented for 30 days or less to insure that
Newport Beach currently provides a
variety of overnight visitor
accommodations in all price ranges. In
2003, Newport Beach had 14 hotels,
motels, timeshares, and bed & breakfast
inns in the coastal zone providing 2,287
rooms. Peak summer rates ranged from
$69 to $750 per night. The Newport
Dunes provides a 406 -space
recreational vehicle park, with tent
camping permitted. In 2003, peak
summer rates ranged from $42 to $139
per night.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -34
overcrowding and public nuisances do not result in adverse impacts to residential
areas, coastal access, and coastal resources (see Section 2.7). In 2003, the City
issued over 800 short-term lodging permits.
The City provides approximately 360 acres of public beaches and parks in the
coastal zone, which are available free of charge. Also, the County's Upper Newport
Bay Nature Preserve and the day use facilities at the County's Newport Dunes
Aquatic Park are available free of charge. These areas offer a variety of free or
lower cost recreational opportunities and are discussed further in Section 3.2.
The City, County, and private organizations also provide several coastal - related
educational and interpretative facilities and programs that are either free or have a
nominal charge. These include the Muth Interpretative Center in the Upper Newport
Bay Nature Preserve, the Back Bay Science Center on Shellmaker Island, the
Newport Aquatic Center at North Star Beach, and the Newport Harbor Nautical
Museum.
Policies:
2.3.3 -1. Lower -cost visitor and recreational facilities, including campgrounds,
recreational vehicle parks, hostels, and lower -cost hotels and motels,
shall be protected, encouraged and, where feasible, provided.
Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
New development that eliminates existing lower -cost accommodations
or provides high -cost overnight visitor accommodations or limited use
overnight visitor accommodations such as timeshares, fractional
ownership and condominium - hotels shall provide lower -cost overnight
visitor accommodations commensurate with the impact of the
development on lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations in
Newport Beach or pay an "in -lieu" fee to the City in an amount to be
determined in accordance with law that shall be used by the City to
provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations.
2.3.3 -2. Encourage new overnight visitor accommodation developments to
provide a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income
ranges. Consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, the City
shall in no event (1) require that overnight room rental be fixed at an
amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or
other similar visitor - serving facility located on either public or private
land; nor (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of
low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining
eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -35
2.3.3 -3. Identify, protect, encourage and provide lower -cost visitor - serving and
recreation facilities, including museums and interpretative centers.
2.3.3 -4. Encourage visitor - serving and recreational developments that provide
public recreational opportunities.
2.3.3 -5. Continue to provide and
protect public beaches and
parks as a means of
providing free and lower -
cost recreational
opportunities.
2.3.3 -6.
Continue to issue short-
term lodging permits for
the rental of dwelling units
as a means of providing
lower -cost overnight visitor
accommodations while
continuing to prevent
Montero Avenue Beach
conditions leading to
increase demand for City services and adverse impacts in residential
areas and coastal resources.
2.3.3 -7. Permit limited -use overnight visitor accommodations on the hotel
resort property located at 1107 Jamboree Road where such
accommodations are provided together with traditional overnight,
hotel visitor accommodations and which shall be subject to specific
restrictions, including on: quantity (no less than 391 units shall be
traditional hotel units available for transient overnight use by the
general public year round and no more than 88 of the total 479 units
planned may be limited -use overnight visitor accommodations),
duration of owner use of such facilities (maximum use of 90 days per
calendar year with a maximum of 29 days of use during any 60 day
period), management of the units as part of the hotel facility and
allowance for transient overnight use by the general public when not
owner occupied; all of which shall be further defined in the
implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such
regulations are certified) and through the coastal development permit
process.
2.3.3 -8. A method to define whether a facility providing overnight
accommodations is low, moderate, or high cost for the City of
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -36
Newport Beach coastal zone shall be developed in the implementing
regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are
certified) and through the coastal development permit process.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -37
2.4 Coastal-dependent/related Development
Coastal Act policies related to coastal- dependent and coastal - related development that are
relevant to Newport Beach include the following:
30255. Coastal -dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Except as
provided elsewhere in this division, coastal- dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate .
coastal- related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal- dependent uses they
support
2.4.1 Commercial
Newport Harbor supports a wide range of coastal -
dependent and coastal - related commercial uses.
These include passenger /sightseeing boats,
passenger - fishing boats, boat rentals and sales,
recreational equipment rentals, entertainment
boats, boat/ship repair and maintenance, and
harbor maintenance facilities. These uses play an
important role in the character of the harbor and
provide the services necessary to sustain one of the
world's great small boat harbors.
Coasta I -de pendent]- related
Coastal- dependent refers to a
development or use that requires a site on,
or adjacent to, the sea to be able to
function at all Coastal - related refers to a
development or use that is dependent on a
coastal dependent development or use.
Over the past 20 years, a number of
marine - related businesses and
industries in Newport Beach have
moved to inland areas. This is
reflective of a regional trend, largely
due to increased environmental
regulation in California affecting
fiberglass manufacturing processes,
as well as real estate price inflation
in coastal communities.
The Recreational and Marine
Commercial (CM) land use category
s the primary method of providing for
Basin Marine Shipyard the continuation of coastal- dependent
and coastal - related commercial uses
on or near the bay. The CM designation is applied to areas that have historically
provided marine - related businesses and industries and visitor - serving and
recreational areas. CM uses are also permitted in the Mixed Use (MU -V, MU -H, and
MU -W) land use categories located on or near the bay to encourage the continuation
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -38
of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses, as well as allow for the integrated
development of residential.
Policies:
2.4.1 -1. Give priority to coastal- dependent uses over other uses on or near the
shoreline.
2.4.1 -2. When appropriate, accommodate coastal - related developments within
reasonable proximity to the coastal- dependent uses they support.
2.4.1 -3. Discourage re -use of properties that result in the reduction of coastal -
dependent commercial uses. Allow the re -use of properties that assure
coastal- dependent uses remain, especially in those areas with
adequate infrastructure and parcels suitable for redevelopment as an
integrated project.
2.4.1 -4. Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal -
dependent and coastal - related developments. When reviewing
proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact
on coastal- dependent and coastal - related land uses including not only
the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to
limit existing coastal - dependent and coastal- related land uses on
adjacent properties.
2.4.1 -5. Maintain the Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use
category and allow CM uses in the Mixed Use land use categories
(MU -V, MU -H, and MU -W) in areas on or near the bay to encourage a
continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses.
2.4.1 -6. Protect and encourage facilities that serve marine - related businesses
and industries unless present and foreseeable future demand for such
facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. Encourage
coastal- dependent industrial facilities to locate or expand within
existing sites and allowed reasonable long -term growth.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -39
2.4.2 Public Facilities
Lands designated for public facilities that are on
or adjacent to the shoreline are primarily used for
public parking, public safety facilities, and
educational facilities. These include coastal -
dependentlrelated institutional uses, such as the
Orange Coast College David A. Grant Collegiate
Rowing Center, the Sea Scout Base, and the
Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory.
Kerditff Marine Laboratory in Corona del Mar
Policy 2.4.2 -1. Continue to designate lands for coastal- dependentirelated
educational and recreational uses.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-40
2.5 Tidelands and Submerged Lands
2.5.1 The Tidelands Trust
2.5.2 Tidelands Leases
Chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1919 granted to the City of Newport Beach all
tidelands and submerged lands that were within its corporate limits at that time.
Additional tidelands were granted by Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927. These
tidelands and submerged lands consist primarily of the land bayward of the bulkhead
and portions of bay beaches in the Lower Bay. The Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-41
Statutes of 1978) regranted to the City of Newport Beach all tidelands and
submerged lands that were within its corporate limits on July 25, 1919. The Beacon
Bay Bill established limitations on the use of tidelands and submerged lands to those
in which there is a general statewide purpose, including the establishment,
improvement and conduct of a public harbor, recreational facilities open to the public,
and the preservation and enhancement of the lands in their natural state. The
Beacon Bay Bill also modified some of the public trust restrictions on certain
properties, such as portions of Beacon Bay and the Balboa Bay Club, subject to a
requirement that revenue generated by these properties be used for public trust
purposes.
Beacon Bay
Beacon Bay refers to an area located
between Promontory Bay and the
Balboa Island Channel. This area
was tidelands that were filled and
reclaimed in the 1920s as the result
of an improvement plan, which
included the development of a harbor
facility that would become the Balboa
Yacht Basin. Chapter 200 of the
Statutes of 1931 allowed the area
west of the Balboa Yacht Basin
(designated as Beacon Bay) to be
leased for residential purposes, A
72 -unit residential subdivision was
developed in the 1930s, which Public beach at Beacon Bay
included 35 homes located on approximately 4 acres of State tidelands.
As indicated above, the Beacon Bay Bill released the residential lots of Beacon Bay
located within State tidelands from the public trust land use limitations and allows
existing leases to continue. These leases are limited to terms not to exceed 50
years and lease revenues have to be deposited into tidelands trust funds. Senate
Bill 573 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 1997) revised the Beacon Bay Bill to require the
residential lease revenue be deposited into specific tidelands trust funds. The current
lease runs to June 27, 2043.
In Fiscal Year 2002 -03, the City of Newport Beach received over $729,000 in lease
revenues from Beacon Bay, which were deposited in tidelands trust funds and State
Lands Commission Land Bank Fund.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-42
Balboa Bay Club
The Balboa Bay Club and Resort is on
approximately 12.6 acres of State
tidelands held in trust by the City of
Newport Beach and leased to the
Balboa Bay Club, Inc. The property is
located on the south side of the 1200
block of West Coast Highway and was
filled and reclaimed in the 1920s as
part of a public project to develop the
Lower Bay as a harbor. The property
is currently developed with a 132 -
room resort hotel, restaurant, spa,
private club facilities, and 144 -unit
Bayfront walkway at the Balboa Bay Club and Resort apartment complex. The State Lands
Commission has determined that the
use of tidelands for private residential purposes is in conflict with the public trust
limitations on use. This conflict was first addressed in the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter
74 of the Statutes of 1978) and later in Assembly Bill 3139 (Chapter 728, Statutes of
1994). AB 3139 recognized that the lease of the apartment complex (identified as
Parcel D) for residential purposes provides fiscal and economic benefits to the public
trust and a means of improving public access. Under the provisions of AB 3139,
lease revenues are placed in tidelands trust funds to provide facilities and services
that directly support public use of tidelands and submerged lands. Income from the
apartments provides an income stream that allowed the lessee to finance the
redevelopment of the club to transition it from a private membership facility to visitor -
serving commercial land uses. AB 3139 therefore allows Parcel D to be leased for
residential purposes until no later than December 31, 2044.
In Fiscal Year 2002 -03, the City of Newport Beach received over $1,870,000 in lease
revenues from Parcel D, which were deposited in tidelands trust funds and State
Lands Commission Land Bank Fund. The redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club
was completed in 2003 and provides public access to the hotel, restaurant, spa, the
main parking lot, and a public walkway to and along the bulkhead.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -43
Harbor Island
Developed in 1926, Harbor Island is a 35 -lot single - family community on a private
island located between Linda Isle and Collins Island. Portions of tidelands
surrounding Harbor Island have been filled or reclaimed and are no longer
submerged or below the mean high tide line. Harbor Island residents have
improved these lands with landscaping and other improvements, The State,
through the adoption of Chapter 715, Statutes of 1984, found that these lands are
generally inaccessible to the public and, in their present condition, are not suitable
for public trust uses. Both the County of Orange (most of the subject lands are
County tidelands) and City of Newport Beach are authorized to allow the Harbor
Island tidelands to be used for non - permanent recreational and landscaping uses.
These leases are limited to terms of 49 years or less and lease revenues have to be
deposited into tidelands trust funds.
Policies:
2.5.2 -1. Administer the use of tidelands and submerged lands in a manner
consistent with the tidelands trust and all applicable laws, including
Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927, the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74,
Statutes of 1978), SB 573 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 1997), AB 3139
(Chapter 728, Statutes of 1994), and Chapter 715, Statutes of 1984
and the Coastal Act.
2.5.2 -2. Promote the public's right of access to the ocean, beach, and bay and
to the provision of coastal- dependent uses adjacent to the water in the
leasing or re- leasing of publicly owned land.
2.5.2 -3. Evaluate and ensure the consistency of the proposed use with the
public trust restrictions and the public interest at the time any tideland
lease is re- negotiated or renewed.
2.5.2 -4. Negotiate or renegotiate tidelands leases at the fair market value
based on the uses authorized in the lease and use the funds as
required by law or the public trust.
2.5.2 -5. Require public access in a manner consistent with the policies of the
Coastal Act and this LCP when the City issues new leases of public
land, or renew existing leases. This requirement shall be understood
to apply to all other public leaseholds in the coastal zone, including
beaches leased to the Lido Isle Association.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-44
2.6 Industrial Development
Coastal Act policies related to industrial development that are relevant to Newport Beach
include the following:
30250 (b) Where feasible, new hazardous Industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.
30260. Coastal- dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be
permitted reasonable long -term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal -
dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division. they may
nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are
infeasible or more environmentally damaging: (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3)
adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
30262. Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260,...
None of the City's industrial areas are
located within the coastal zone. However,
portions of Cannery Village (SP -3) are
designated for a mixture of general
commercial and light industrial uses to
encourage marine - related business.
When Newport Beach adopted its charter
in 1954, oil and gas exploration, drilling, _
production, and refining was banned in the
City. However, one oil field operation
existed prior to the ban. The Newport Oil
Field Is located In the western portion of Commercial and light industrial uses in Cannery Village
Newport Beach. The field was divided into two areas known as the Cagney and
Beach areas. The Beach Area discovery well was drilled in 1922 and discovery well
in the Cagney Area was drilled in 1947. The Beach Area has been abandoned, but
there were still 3 gas - producing wells in the Cagney Area.
Oil and gas operations are also conducted throughout the County portion of the
Banning Ranch property (West Newport Oil Field) pursuant to California Coastal
Commission Exemption E -144. Banning Ranch is a deferred certification area due
to unresolved issues relating to land use, the future of the oil and gas operations, and
the protection of the coastal resources on the property (see Section 2.2.4).
The City of Newport Beach and other coastal communities in Southern California
have long opposed the federal government's offshore oil leasing programs. Newport
Beach residents and visitors rely heavily on the bay and oceanfront beaches for
recreation, and much of the City's economy is based upon its natural resources.
Development of offshore tracts creates visual impacts and poses the threat of
significant oil spills and resulting environmental damage.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -45
Policies:
2.6 -1. In the areas designated for
industrial land uses, give
priority to coastal- dependent
and coastal - related industrial
uses over other industrial
uses on or near the
shoreline.
2.6 -2. Continue to monitor the
federal government's
offshore oil leasing programs
to insure the City and its
citizens are fully aware of all
proposed offshore activities,
which could adversely affect
the coastal environment,
including participation in the
other similar programs.
West Newport Oil Field operations
Local Government Coordination Program or
2.6 -3. Oppose and lobby against proposed lease sales off the coast of Orange
County and elsewhere in the Southern California region, which could
adversely affect the environment or the economy of the City of Newport
Beach.
2.6 -4. Assist jurisdictions in other areas of the state that are opposed to offshore
lease sale programs in their vicinity.
2.6 -5. Where feasible, locate new hazardous industrial development away from
existing developed areas.
2.6-6. Encourage coastal- dependent industrial facilities to locate or expand within
existing sites and permit reasonable long -term growth where consistent with
the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-46
2.7 Residential Development
Newport Beach has a wide variety of residential development types in the coastal
zone, ranging from low- density single - family detached subdivisions to high - density
high -rise condominiums. Most of the residential areas in the coastal zone were
originally subdivided in the early 20th Century, with many developments marketed as
vacation home sites. This established the grid system of small lots and narrow
streets and alleys that still exists today. These subdivision characteristics and the
development of two- family and multi - family development have resulted in relatively
high residential densities in Newport Beach's coastal neighborhoods.
Coastal zone residential areas are almost completely built out, with the exception of
the Banning Ranch area ( see Section 2.2.4). Most residential building activity
consists of remodeling and /or the total reconstruction of existing dwelling units.
Newport Beach's proximity to major employment markets and its desirable coastal
setting have led to steadily increasing land costs. In 2001, Newport Beach was one
of the ten California communities with the highest median home prices. This high
market demand is manifest in a number of development issues facing the City,
including development on odd - shaped or physically constrained properties, trends
towards larger dwelling units, and proposals to allow residential development in
commercial areas.
Hundreds of dwelling units in coastal zone residential areas are rented for 30 days or
less. The vast majority of these rentals occur during the summer when the demand
for parking and City services is greatest. Overcrowding and public nuisances
associated with these short -term rentals have resulted in adverse impacts to
residential areas, coastal access, and coastal resources. Since 1992, the City has
required short-term lodging permits to assist in controlling overcrowding and unruly
behavior. Short-term lodging permits require the owner of the short-term rental to
agree to limit overnight occupancy of the unit to a specific number of occupants not
exceeding that permitted by the Building Code. Short-term rental owners are also
required to use best efforts to insure that the occupants and guests are law abiding,
do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances, or engage in disorderly conduct.
Short-term rental owners are also required to use best efforts to insure compliance
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-47
with all health and sanitation regulations.
Illegal or "bootleg" dwelling units exist in
Newport Beach, experienced most often
in the older, beach - oriented areas of
West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa
Island and Corona del Mar. These units
are found in two typical forms: the
"splitting" of a single dwelling unit into two
separate occupancies, and the
conversion of garages to living space.
These units usually have a number of
health and safety code violations, due to
conversion without proper building
permits and inspections. Associated
overcrowding, traffic congestion, and west Newport homes
illegal vehicle parking have also resulted in adverse impacts to residential areas and
coastal resources. Illegal dwelling units are less prevalent than in the past, due to
increased year -round owner occupancy in these areas and Report of Residential
Building Records inspections that occur when properties are sold. A Report of
Residential Building Records is a report issued by the City describing the zoning of
the residential building, the number of dwelling units permitted pursuant to the zoning
classification, and other information relevant to the use, occupancy and construction
of the residential building.
Policies:
2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height
limits for residential development to protect the character of established
neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources.
2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the
demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling
units within the coastal zone.
2.7-3. Continue to authorize short-term rental of dwelling units pursuant to permits
and standard conditions that ensure the rentals will not interfere with public
access and enjoyment of coastal resources.
2.7 -4. Continue to require Report of Residential Building Records inspections prior
to the sale of residential properties to reduce and prevent violations of building
and zoning codes by providing prospective owners of residential property with
information as to permitted and illegal uses and construction.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -48
2.8 Hazards and Protective Devices
2.8.1 General
Newport Beach is susceptible to hazards, including, storm surges, beach and bluff
erosion, landslides and slope failure, and wildland fires. Newport Beach is also
susceptible to low - probability but high -risk events like earthquakes and tsunamis. It
is the mandate of the Coastal Act to reduce potential risks to life and property and to
avoid substantial alteration of natural landforms. In reviewing coastal development
permits, the emphasis needs to be placed on siting and designing new development
to avoid hazardous areas rather than relying on protective devices.
Policies:
2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential
threats from coastal and other hazards.
2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and
minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-49
2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid
hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal
and other hazards.
2.8.1 -4. Require new development to 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.
2.8.2 Tsunamis and Rogue Waves
Tsunamis
A tsunami is a sea wave caused by any large -scale disturbance of the ocean floor
that occurs in a short period of time and causes a sudden displacement of water.
Tsunamis can travel across the entire Pacific Ocean basin, or they can be local.
Large -scale tsunamis are not single waves, but rather a long train of waves. The
most frequent causes of tsunamis are shallow underwater earthquakes and
submarine landslides; however, underwater volcanic explosions, oceanic meteor
impacts, and even underwater nuclear explosions can also cause tsunamis. The
highest elevation that the water reaches as it runs up on the land is referred to as
wave runup, uprush, or inundation height. Inundation refers to the horizontal
distance that a tsunami wave penetrates inland.
The historical tsunami record for California suggests that the tsunami hazard in the
Southern California region, from the Palos Verdes Peninsula south to San Diego, is
moderate. However, the Southern California historical record is very short and it is
possible that Southern California has been impacted by tsunamis for which there is
no record. More significantly, there are several active faults immediately offshore of
the Southern California area, and any of these could generate a future earthquake
that could have a tsunami associated with it. Finally, several submarine landslides
and landslide - susceptible areas have been mapped offshore, within 3.5 to 14 km (2.2
8.7 mi) to of the coastline. For the Orange County coastline particularly, near -shore
tsunamis should be considered worst -case scenarios, as these have the potential to
cause high runups that would impact the coastline with almost no warning.
The Channel Islands and Point Arguello protect Newport Beach from most distantly
generated tsunamis (teletsunamis) spawned in the Pacific Ocean, except for those
generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of
Central America. Nevertheless, since the early 1800's, more than 30 tsunamis have
been recorded in Southern California, and at least six of these caused damage in the
area, although not necessarily in Newport Beach. Tsunamis generated in the
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -50
Alaskan region take approximately 6 hours to make it to the Southern California
area, while tsunamis generated off the Chilean coast take 12 to 15 hours to reach
Southern California. Given those time frames, coastal communities in Southern
California can receive adequate warning, allowing them to implement evacuation
procedures. Alternatively, very little warning time, if any, can be expected from
locally generated tsunamis. Locally generated tsunamis caused by offshore faulting
or landsliding (including earthquake - induced landsliding) immediately offshore from
Newport Beach are possible, and these tsunamis have the potential to be worst -case
scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. Modeling off the Santa
Barbara coast suggests that locally generated tsunamis can cause waves between 2
and 20 m (6 to 60 feet) high, and that these could impact the coastline with almost no
warning, within minutes of the causative earthquake or slump.
The tsunami inundation maps were prepared based on several sea water levels
scenarios for 100- and 500 -year tsunamis. The findings are summarized below:
Tsunami Inundation at Mean Sea Level. In this scenario, Newport Bay and most of
the harbor would be inundated with the potential to damage small vessels and docks.
Some of the properties adjacent to the Bay would also be impacted, especially the
northwestern section of Balboa Island, which is predicted to be inundated. The water
level in Upper Newport Bay is anticipated to rise some but the data available are
insufficient to quantify the hazard in this area.
Tsunami Inundation at Mean High Water. In this scenario, Most of the harbor area,
including the inland, developed portion of the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and
Upper Newport Bay could be inundated during such an event. Near -shore sections
of Lido Isle and Linda Isle would also be impacted, and Lido Isle would be cut off
from the mainland due to flooding along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. This
scenario is expected to cause considerable damage to homes in the low -lying areas
and to all moored boats.
Tsunami Inundation at Extreme High Tide. In this scenario, a significant portion of
Newport Harbor and the low -lying areas south of Coast Highway would be inundated
by both the 100- and 500 -year wave runups. The 100 -year event shows that except
for a small sliver of Lido Isle, the entire Newport Bay area would flood. Flooding is
also anticipated in the area where Newport Dunes Resort is located. In the 500 -year
event, all of Lido Isle is expected to flood. The probability of a tsunami occurring
during extreme high tide is highly improbable and represents the worst -case
scenario. However, these tsunami runups are possible if a tsunami occurs
immediately offshore of Newport Beach, whether as a result of faulting or landsliding.
Roque Waves
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -51
Rogue waves are very high waves, as much as tens of meters high, but compared to
tsunamis, they are very short from one crest to the next, typically less than 2 km
(1.25 mi) long. Rogue waves arise unexpectedly in the open ocean and their
generating mechanism is a source of controversy and active research. Some
theories on rogue wave formation include:
■ Strong currents that interact with existing swells making the swells much
higher;
• A statistical aberration that occurs when a number of waves just happen to be
in the same place at the same time, combining to make one big wave;
■ The result of a storm in the ocean where the wind causes the water surface to
be rough and choppy, creating very large waves.
Rogue waves are unpredictable and therefore making planning nearly impossible.
Nevertheless, some high waves that have historically impacted the Orange County
coastline may be best explained as rogue waves. If this is the case, rogue waves
have the potential to impact the Newport Beach area in the future.
Policies:
2.8.2 -1. Review local and distant tsunami inundation maps for Newport Beach
and adjacent coastal communities as they are developed to identify
susceptible areas and plan evacuation routes.
2.8.2 -2. Periodically review and update tsunami preparation and response
policies /practices to reflect current inundation maps and design
standards.
2.8.2 -3. Participate in any regional effort to develop and implement workable
response plans that the City's emergency services can adopt
immediately for evacuation in the case of a tsunami warning.
2.8.2 -4. Prepare and deploy a system of tsunami detection and early warning
systems.
2.8.2 -5. Include tsunami evacuation route information as part of any overall
evacuation route sign program implemented in the City. Evacuation
routes off of the peninsula and islands in the Bay should be clearly
posted. An evacuation route traffic monitoring system that provides
real -time information on the traffic flow at critical roadways should be
considered.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -52
2.8.2 -6. Continue projects like the Surfside- SunseUWest Newport Beach
Replenishment program to maintain beach width. Wide beaches
provide critical protection against tsunami runup for structures along
the oceanfront.
2.8.2 -7. Develop and implement a tsunami educational program for residents,
visitors, and people who work in the susceptible areas.
2.8.2 -8. Require overnight visitor - serving facilities in susceptible areas to
provide tsunami information and evacuation plans.
2.8.2 -9. Encourage the Newport-Mesa School District to include in their
earthquake - preparedness curriculum information specifically related to
the natural hazards that Newport Beach's citizens could face, and what
to do about them.
2.8.2 -10. Support tsunami research in the Newport Beach offshore and Newport
Bay areas.
2.8.3 Storm Surges and Seiches
Two common coastal flooding processes include storm surges and seiches.
Storm Surges
A stone surge is an abnormal rise in
sea water level associated with
hurricanes and other storms at sea.
Surges result from strong on -shore
winds and /or intense low- pressure
cells associated with ocean storms.
Water level is controlled by wind,
atmospheric pressure, existing
astronomical tide, waves and swell,
local coastal topography and
bathymetry, and the storm's proximity
to the coast.
Most often, destruction by storm
surge is attributable to:
scorn bey acrnewea9e
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -53
■ Wave impact and the physical shock on objects associated with the passing
of the wave front. The water may lift and carry objects to different locations.
• Direct impact of waves on fixed structures. This tends to cause most of the
damage.
• Indirect impacts, such as flooding and the undermining of major infrastructure
(such as highways and railroads).
Storm surges affect primarily ocean front property, and the low -lying areas of
Newport Bay just inland from the jetties. Newport Bay is less affected by storm
surge. Unlike tsunamis, which can occur anytime, storm surges are associated
with bad weather. Given that during bad weather fewer people are expected to be
at the beach, storm surges are more likely to impact residents than tourists, and
the potential number of casualties can be expected to be significantly less.
The most common problem associated
with storm surges is flooding of low -lying
areas, including structures. Coastal
flooding in Newport Beach occurred in the
past when major storms, many of these
ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation)
events, impacted the area. This is often
compounded by intense rainfall and
strong winds. If a storm surge occurs
. during high tide, the flooded area can be
significant. In the Southern California
F
area, including Newport Beach, localized
Balboa Peninsula houses destroyed by storm surge from the flooding and accelerated rates of coastal
1939 tropical storm erosion have occurred when storms are
combined with high tides. This occurred during the 1977 -1978 storms, when the
combination of high waves, local storm surges and high tides damaged several
coastal structures in southern California. During the storms in 1988, the high water
extended to the first row of houses behind the groin field at Newport Beach causing
minor flood damage to these structures. Storm surging associated with a tropical
storm has been reported only once in the history of Newport Beach, in 1939. This
suggests that the hazard of cyclone - induced storm surges has a low probability of
occurrence. Nevertheless, the one incident in 1939 caused millions of dollars in
damage to Newport Beach.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -54
Seiches
A seiche is defined as a standing wave oscillation in an enclosed or semi - enclosed,
shallow to moderately shallow water body or basin, such as lake, reservoir, bay or
harbor. Seiches continue (in a pendulum fashion) after the cessation of the
originating force, which can be tidal action, wind action, or a seismic event. Seiches
are often described by the period of the waves (how quickly the waves repeat
themselves), since the period will often determine whether or not adjoining structures
will be damaged. The period of a seiche varies depending on the dimensions of the
basin. Whether an earthquake will create seiches depends upon a number of
earthquake - specific parameters, including the earthquake location (a distant
earthquake is more likely to generate a seiche than a local earthquake), the style of
fault rupture (e.g., dip -slip or strike - slip), and on the configuration (length, width and
depth) of the basin.
Amplitudes of seiche waves associated with earthquake ground motion are typically
less than 0.5 m (1.6 feet high), although some have exceeded 2 m (6.6 ft). A seiche
in Hebgen Reservoir, caused by an earthquake in 1959 near Yellowstone National
Park, repeatedly overtopped the dam, causing considerable damage to the dam and
its spillway. The 1964 Alaska earthquake produced seiche waves 0.3 m (1 ft) high in
the Grand Coulee Dam reservoir, and seiches of similar magnitude in fourteen
bodies of water in the state of Washington.
Upper Newport Bay, the harbor and some of the reservoirs in Newport Beach could
be susceptible to seiches. However, there is no record of seiches impacting the area
after both local and distant earthquakes. Wind - generated seiches in Newport Bay
also have not been reported. Due to the small surface area of Newport Bay and
Upper Newport Bay, the probability that damaging seiches would develop in these
bodies of water is considered low and are not considered a significant hazard in
Newport Beach. If a seiche developed in Newport Bay, the waves are expected to
be low, impacting primarily moored boats.
Policies:
2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new
development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to
wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from
waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact
reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal
processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush
study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75
years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long -term (75
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -55
year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year
event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Nino event.
2.8.3 -2. Prepare and periodically update (every 5 years) comprehensive
wave uprush and impact reports for shoreline and coastal bluff areas
subject to wave action that will be made available to applicants for
new development on a beach or coastal bluff property for use in
fulfilling the requirement of Policy 2.8.3 -1 above.
2.8.3 -3. Develop and implement shoreline management plans for shoreline
areas subject to wave hazards and erosion. Shoreline management
plans should provide for the protection of existing development,
public improvements, coastal access, public opportunities for coastal
recreation, and coastal resources. Plans must evaluate the
feasibility of hazard avoidance, restoration of the sand supply, beach
nourishment and planned retreat.
2.8.3 -4. Continue to utilize temporary sand dunes in shoreline areas to
protect buildings and infrastructure from wave uprush, while
minimizing significant impacts to coastal access and resources.
2.8.3 -5. Encourage the use of sand dunes with native vegetation as a
protective device in beach areas.
2.8.3 -6. Encourage the use of non - structural methods, such as dune
restoration and sand nourishment, as alternatives to shoreline
protective structures.
2.8.4 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
Most hurricanes that affect the southern California region are generated in the
southern portion of the Gulf of California. Though no hurricane- strength storms have
reportedly hit the Los Angeles basin area in modern times, damage from wave swell
and weather related to hurricanes that develop in the Baja California area has been
reported throughout southern California. Swells caused by offshore storms and
hurricanes in Baja California can cause localized flooding and erosion of the
southern California coastline. Only one tropical- strength storm has ever been
recorded as actually hitting California. Near the end of September 1939, a tropical
storm with sustained winds of 80.5 km/hr (50 mi /hr) came ashore at Long Beach.
The storm generated five inches of rain in the Los Angeles basin on September 25th,
and between 15 and 30.5 cm (6 and 12 inches) of rain in the surrounding mountains.
In Newport Beach, this storm produced 30 -foot high waves (as high as a three -story
building) that tore away half of Newport Pier and destroyed most of Balboa Pier,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -56
damaged portions of the jetties, several homes and small vessels, and caused
numerous drownings. Other less severe but still significant storms that impacted the
southern California coastline occurred during 1927, 1938 -1939, 1941, 1969, 1977-
1978, 1983, 1988 and even more recently in 1995, and 1997 -1998. Many of these
wet winters have been associated with ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) events.
The main hazards associated with
tropical cyclones, and especially
hurricanes, are storm surge, high winds,
heavy rain, flooding, and tornadoes.
The greatest potential for loss of life
related to a hurricane for coastal
communities is from the storm surge,
which if combined with normal tides can
increase the mean water level by 4.6 m
(15 ft) or more. Waves that high would
breach or extend over the Balboa
Peninsula and impact all development
adjacent to the coastline, including areas
along Corona del Mar.
2.8.5 Sea Level Rise
Half the Newport Pier was destroyed by heavy surf from the
1939 tropical storm
The level of the oceans has always fluctuated with changes in global temperatures.
The last ice age ended approximately eighteen thousand years ago, and since then
the world has been experiencing global warming - most of the ice caps have melted,
most of the glaciers have retreated, and the sea level has risen. Until about 5,000
years ago, sea level rose rapidly at an average rate of nearly 0.4 in (1 cm) a year.
Since then, sea levels have continued to rise but at a slower pace. We are currently
in an interglacial period, meaning "between glacial' periods, and as a result, sea
levels are relatively high. However, during the last major interglacial period
(approximately 100,000 years ago), temperatures were about 1°C (2 °F) warmer than
today and sea level was approximately 6 meters (20 feet) higher than today.
Global sea level trends, therefore, have generally been estimated by combining the
trends at tidal stations around the world. These records suggest that during the last
century, worldwide sea level has risen 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 inches), much of which
has been attributed to global warming. Although sea level rise by itself does not
cause substantial changes in the landform, several processes associated with sea
level rise can have dramatic effects on our environment. For example, a significant
rise in sea level would inundate coastal wetlands and lowlands, and the increased
surges and swells associated with this rise in sea level would accelerate coastal
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -57
erosion and exacerbate coastal flooding, thereby threatening local structures and
habitat. Other related processes include higher water tables, increased sea -water
intrusion into fresh water aquifers, and increased salinity of rivers, bays, and
aquifers. The warmer climate may also result in a much higher probability of
extremely warm years with increased precipitation in some areas, and drought in
other areas. It is clear that global changes in climate will occur, but the local impacts
are still being debated. In fact, recent studies have moved away from the global
doomsday predictions to predictions at the local scale. Much work yet needs to be
done in this area.
Previous studies suggest that a 1 m (39 in) rise in sea level would generally cause
beaches to erode 200 to 400 m (650 to 1,300 ft) along the California coast. Given
that the width of the beaches in Newport Beach varies between 15 and 190 m (50
and 600 ft), a sea level rise of as little as 15 cm (6 in) could have a negative impact
on the low lying areas around Newport Bay that are not protected by bulkheads and
seawalls. Sea level rise would also cause increased sea -cliff retreat in the southern
portion of the City where the beaches are narrow, and the surf pounds at the base of
the bluffs, eroding away the soft bedrock that forms the cliffs.
The record of sea level rise in the last century is poorly constrained in this region,
however. Gauge records up and down the Pacific Coast show substantial variations
in relative sea level rise. Based on the historical records from the two gauges closest
to Newport Beach, in Los Angeles and San Diego, a 15 -cm rise in sea level in the
Newport Beach area may take anywhere between 70 and 180 years, assuming that
global warming does not accelerate in the next few decades. These estimates are
too poorly constrained to engender policy changes and development of appropriate
mitigation strategies. However, sea level rise would lead to the permanent
inundation of low -lying areas, with potentially significant changes in land use, so it is
not too soon to develop longer -term strategies that can be implemented to cope with
these changes.
2.8.6 Coastal Erosion
Beach Erosion
Both natural processes and humans have modified the Newport Beach coastline
extensively for over the past 180 years. The Balboa Peninsula did not begin to form
until 1825. The wide sandy beaches that we associate with West Newport Beach
are actually the result of shoreline stabilization programs that began as early as the
1920's, and beach sand nourishment programs that began in earnest in the 1960's.
The "natural" beaches that characterized the southern California coastline prior to
significant anthropogenic intervention were narrow strips of dry beaches on a sand-
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -58
starved coast. These beaches would be unable to support the present -day demands
for coastal access and recreation.
In an undeveloped area, the availability of sand to replenish the beaches is
dependent on floodwaters that bring sediment down from the mountains and into the
littoral drift zone offshore. However, with the increase in dams and other flood
control structures upstream, significantly less quantities of sediment reach the coast.
Therefore, the sediments lost by natural near -shore processes are not being
replaced. This is certainly the case in southern California, where most of the major
streams have been dammed, or are lined in concrete, significantly reducing their
sediment load. In the Newport Beach area, sand was historically delivered to the
local beaches by the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers, and to a limited extent, as a
result of coastal bluff erosion. With the construction of dams and channelization of
portions of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers, there was a substantial reduction
in the volume of sediment reaching the coastline. Construction of harbors, jetties,
and other coastal barriers further reduced the amount of sand moved by along -shore
currents.
Beach sands occur from south of the
Santa Ana River to the north
entrance to Newport channel. Some
of these deposits support dune
vegetation, especially the sands
forming the Balboa and Newport
beaches. When the dune vegetation
is well established, erosion of these
sediments is minimal. However, foot
or vehicular traffic and the burrowing
action of rodents can easily
compromise the health of this
vegetation cover, exposing the near-
surface sediments to erosion. Sand
Is easily transported during storms Beach erosion in West Newport in the late 1960s
and can erode quickly if up -drift sand
sources are cut off.
The narrow beaches south of the channel entrance are especially vulnerable to high
waves caused by tsunamis or storm surge. Beach erosion may be a problem south
of the channel entrance due to the impedance of sediment redistribution via
longshore flow by seawalls and rocky bluffs to the north. The area north of the jetties
is also vulnerable to inundation due to low beach relief and erosion of coastal dunes
(see Section 4.1.4 for dune habitat protection).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -59
Bluff Erosion
South of the channel entrance to
Newport Bay, to the south of the
beach nourishment project area, the
coastline is defined by steep coastal
bluffs with a narrow basal wavecut
platform that is covered by a thin
veneer of beach sand. The bluffs
form steep cliffs, especially at points.
The Newport Beach coastal bluffs
consist of siliceous marine shales,
marine sandstone, and siltstone of
the Monterey Formation. The
sandstone beds are resistant and cliff
forming, while the siltstone beds are
less resistant and form steep talus -
covered slopes.
Erosion of coastal bluffs due to increased water application
The bedrock of the Monterey Formation is folded, and dips primarily to the east,
away from the bluff face. Overlying the Monterey Formation are Pleistocene marine
terrace deposits. These deposits are massive to crudely bedded, consist of medium
to coarse sand with a trace of pebble -sized gravel, and are friable and locally loose.
A resistant shell bed marks the base of the terrace deposits.
At the base of the bluffs is a mantle of colluvium. It consists of angular, pebble- to
boulder -size clasts of sandstone and siltstone. In some areas, this colluvial cover
buries the bluffs almost to the top, and in some areas, the material is reworked and
forms a low terrace with weak soil development. The colluvium is heavily vegetated
and appears to protect the base of the cliffs against normal wave action.
The elevated 100,000 -year old marine terrace deposits are prone to landslides along
steep cuts (such as those along Coast Highway) and are susceptible to significant
erosion by stream incision, including rilling and gullying along bluff tops. Several
streams are cutting through the coastal bluffs, forming steep narrow gorges and
undermining the bluffs where they emerge along the coastline. The cap of marine
terrace deposits overlying bedrock of the Monterey Formation is heavily rilled along
stream cuts and along the face of the bluffs; so it is retreating faster than the
underlying bedrock.
The shaley and silty parts of the Monterey Formation is very fissile and fractured.
Sliding and slumping of this unit appears to be the primary mechanism for current
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -60
bluff retreat, with these processes occurring primarily along slopes that have been
oversteepened by wave action (along rocky bluffs) or stream incisions.
The more sandy parts of the Monterey Formation is the most resistant bluff - forming
unit in the area. This geologic unit is prone to landsliding or mass wasting where
undercut by wave action, especially at rocky bluffs or points, failing primarily as large
blocks.
A concern with urbanization of the bluff areas is that the bluff- forming materials
become saturated when shallow ground water rises in response to the increased
watering of lawns, generally in an attempt to grow non - native vegetation. Agricultural
irrigation, septic tanks and leach lines also contribute to the increased water content
of these deposits. This over - watering increases the weight of the sediments,
lubricates any joints or fractures that can act as planes of weakness, and increases
the chemical dissolution of the underling rocks. All of these processes can contribute
to slope instability along the bluffs.
Artificial Coastal Protection
The use of artificial coastal protection
structures was favored 30 to 50 years
ago, when the groin Feld in West
Newport was constructed. Other
structures intended to protect the
coast, such as concrete and wooden
seawalls and bulkheads, riprap and
rock aprons are located in and around
Newport Harbor and the adjacent
shoreline. However, it has been long
observed that where such protective
structures extend seaward beyond
Rock groin along Newport Beach adjacent unprotected lots, immediate
erosion and notching may occur down drift, especially during large storms and
periods of high tide. As beach sand levels fall, storm waves tend to converge on
projecting structures (i.e. groins) and the waves refract toward unprotected areas of
the beach. Therefore given that improperly located artificial protective devices can
have negative impacts that far outweigh their benefits, beach nourishment has
emerged as the preferred method of shoreline stabilization in recent decades.
Structures built perpendicular to the shoreline tend to slow the long -shore drift of
sediments and thus starve the down -drift area of beach - nourishing sediments. This
is seen on a larger scale with the system of groins in the West Newport. The area
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-61
east of the jetties has an erosional notch due to the blockage of littoral drift from the
north. On a smaller scale, groins can have the same effect. In the case of West
Newport Beach, eight rock groins were installed in the late 1960's and early 1970's
to help maintain the beach. The effect of this groin field on the width of the beach is
readily apparent (the beach on the northwest side of the groin field is wider than the
beach where the groins are located). Southeast of the groin field, sand is being
trapped by the west jetty at the harbor entrance, which stabilizes the Balboa
Peninsula. The effect of these structures is complemented and augmented by
regular beach sand replenishment. The protection of the beaches provides more
than just a wider beach for recreational purposes and real- estate development; it
serves as a buffer zone that provides protection from tsunami runup or storm surges,
especially in areas where there are no dune deposits in front of residential or
commercial development.
Erosion stabilization measures that have been implemented in the Corona del Mar
area include concrete covering on one unstable slope, vegetation along the tops and
bases of bluffs, boulders at the base of bluffs, where no colluvial cover exists, and
channelization of the streams to prevent further downcutting of the terrace and
bedrock units.
Policies:
2.8.6 -1. Prepare and periodically update comprehensive studies of seasonal
and long -term shoreline change, episodic and chronic bluff retreat,
flooding, and local changes in sea levels, and other coastal hazard
conditions.
2.8.6 -2. Continue to monitor beach width and elevations and analyze
monitoring data to establish approximate thresholds for when beach
erosion or deflation will reach a point that it could expose the
backshore development to flooding or damage from storm waves.
2.8.6 -3. Develop and implement a comprehensive beach replenishment
program to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations. Analyze
monitoring data to determine nourishment priorities, and try to use
nourishment as shore protection, in lieu of more permanent hard
shoreline armoring options.
2.8.6 -4. Maintain existing groin fields and jetties and modify as necessary to
eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline processes.
2.8.6 -5. Permit revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls,
cliff retaining walls and other structures altering natural shoreline
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -62
processes or retaining walls when required to sere coastal- dependent
uses or to protect existing principal structures or public beaches in
danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate
adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply, unless a waiver of
future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal
development permit.
2.8.6 -6. Design and site protective devices to minimize impacts to coastal
resources, minimize alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide
for coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate or mitigate
adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.
2.8.6 -7. Discourage shoreline protective devices on public land to protect
private property /development. Site and design any such protective
devices as far landward as possible. Such protective devices may be
considered only after hazard avoidance, restoration of the sand supply,
beach nourishment and planned retreat are exhausted as possible
alternatives.
2.8.6 -8. Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect
existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas
for new development or for new development. "Existing development"
for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure, e.g.
residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit, and
shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks,
patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping etc.
2.8.6 -9. Require 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 of a coastal
development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or
bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or
other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff.
Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing 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.
2.8.6 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and
bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75
years).
Note: See Section 4.4.3 for Coastal bluff policies.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -63
2.8.7 Geologic and Seismic
Geologic
The Newport Mesa and San Joaquin Hills areas of the City include slopes that are
surficially unstable and can become a problem during intense or sustained rainfall.
Many of the geologic units underlying these areas are also easily erodible. Cuts
made into these high relief areas may be unstable if planes of weakness are
exposed. In addition to posing a hazard to life and property, landslides and slope
failure can impact traffic flow along major routes, such as Coast Highway. Mudslides
and debris flows also have the potential to impact development at the mouths of
canyons and at the base of the hills.
Compressible soils are characteristic of areas underlain by poorly consolidated
stream and colluvial deposits. These soils have a moderate to high potential for
differential settlement when a large load, such as a building, is applied to them.
Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City. Areas of the City where
compressible soils are most likely to occur are active and recently active stream
channels, estuary deposits, beach and dune deposits, and young alluvial fan
deposits. In the San Joaquin Hills, compressible soils are commonly found in
canyon bottoms, swales, and at the base of natural slopes.
Fine - grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of
expansive clay materials. These materials can undergo significant volumetric
changes as a result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressure induced
by the swelling of expansive soils can have significant harmful effects upon
structures and other surface improvements. Thick soil profiles developed on the
older marine deposits west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably
fall in the moderately expansive range. Potentially expansive bedrock may be
exposed on natural slopes and ridges in the San Joaquin Hills, or may be uncovered
by grading cuts made for developments. Man -made fills can also be expansive,
depending on the soils used to construct them.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-64
Seismic
The Newport- Inglewood fault extends across
Newport Beach in a northwesterly direction. The
southern portion of the City is underlain by the San
Joaquin Hills fault, a recently discovered fault that
does not extend to the surface but that could have
associated, secondary faults at or near the surface.
A major earthquake along any of these faults could
result in substantial casualties and damage resulting
in collapsed buildings, damaged roads and bridges,
fires, flooding, and other threats to life and property.
The San Joaquin Hills blind thrust was only
discovered in the late 1990s and its geometry and
behavior are not well constrained. However, an
earthquake on this fault, due to its blind thrust
geometry and location has the potential to be more
damaging to Newport Beach than rupture of the
Newport- Inglewood fault. Typically, earthquakes on
thrust faults produce greater vertical accelerations than comparably sized strike -slip
earthquakes (such as one on the Newport- Inglewood fault) and vertical motions are
more damaging to structures. Scientists suggest the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust
fault could produce a magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake.
The Newport- Inglewood fault is considered the second most active fault in California.
Prior to the discovery of the San Joaquin Hills fault, the Newport- Inglewood fault was
thought to pose the greatest threat to Newport Beach because of its close proximity
to the City, historic activity, and its recurrence interval. It runs from the City of
Inglewood through Newport Beach where it extends out into the Pacific Ocean.
This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the range of 6.3 to 7.5 magnitudes,
The 1933, 6.5 magnitude Long Beach earthquake occurred on the Newport-
Inglewood fault, causing 120 deaths and severe damage. Unreinforced masonry
buildings collapsed leaving people trapped beneath the rubble. Schools collapsed.
The Long Beach earthquake epicenter was in the Newport Harbor area of Newport
Beach. Buildings were damaged in the City as a result of this earthquake. The low
population and development of the time attributed to decreased damage in the
Newport Beach area.
The San Andreas fault is located approximately 70 miles northeast of the City. This
fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude 8+ range. Current
estimates are that major earthquakes on this fault occur approximately every 145
years. The last major earthquake on the Southern San Andreas fault occurred in
1857.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-65
The Whittier fault is the northern extension of the Elsinore fault and is located
approximately 20 miles north of the City. No major historical earthquakes have been
attributed to the Whittier fault. However, trenching studies have documented
recurrent movement of this fault in the last 17,000 years. The Southern California
Earthquake Center determined there is a five percent chance of an earthquake
occurring on the Whittier fault by 2024. The Whittier fault is thought capable of
producing a magnitude 6.8 maximum magnitude earthquake, although some
investigators propose an even larger magnitude 7.1 quake.
In addition to the four fault systems mentioned above, there are several other known
potential sources of strong ground shaking within 60 miles of Newport Beach. These
include the Peralta Hills, Santa Monica - Hollywood, Puente Hills and Cucamonga
faults. These faults could also affect Newport Beach, though not as severely. There
are still many uncharted earthquake faults throughout California and several active
offshore faults posing possible impacts for Newport Beach.
Poorly consolidated sediments and shallow groundwater underlie portions of
Newport Beach, particularly from West Newport to the tip of the Balboa Peninsula
and in the areas in and around Newport Bay. These areas have a high susceptibility
to liquefaction during earthquakes. Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes
various types of ground failure. When liquefaction occurs, the sediments involved
have a total or substantial loss of shear strength, and behave like a liquid or semi -
viscous substance. Liquefaction can cause structural distress or failure due to
ground settlement, a loss of bearing capacity in the foundation soils, and the buoyant
rise of buried structures. The excess of hydrostatic pressure generated by ground
shaking can result in the formation of sand boils or mud spouts, and /or seepage of
water through cracks.
The areas with the liquefaction potential are densely populated and possess
considerable commercial property. It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong
earthquake will cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure. Newport
Beach requires the properties in these areas to be built on compacted soils, which
should lessen the liquefaction potential.
Other secondary affects of earthquakes include
■ Fires. A high probability of fire following an earthquake results from the
number of broken gas lines typically occurring during shaking. Water mains
and lines often break as well, due to ground movement. The combination of
fires and a water shortage seriously complicates the response to earthquakes
and their secondary affects.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-66
■ Dam Failure. Flooding caused by earthquake induced dam failure of the
Prado Dam could impact Newport Beach. However, the probability of
flooding due to dam failure is low since the Prado Dam is rarely full. Flooding
could also result from the failure of the Big Canyon Reservoir.
• Hazardous Chemical Spills. The north end and west side of the Newport
Beach house a large percentage of the City's industries with large quantities
of hazardous chemicals. This area would be most affected by hazardous
chemical spills and hazardous chemical fires resulting from earthquakes.
• Oil Spills and Pipeline Breakage. Oil fields and oil storage tanks can be seen
on the west side of Newport Beach. Although the tanks are diked, a major
earthquake could damage the tanks and dikes causing vast amounts of oil
spillage. There are numerous underground pipelines traversing the City. An
earthquake could easily cause a pipeline breakage, releasing either natural
crude oil or refined petroleum products.
Policies:
2.8.7 -1. Conduct hydrological studies of Big Canyon, Buck Gully and Morning
Canyon to develop methods to control water quality, sedimentation,
erosion, and slope failure and to protect downstream areas from debris
flows.
2.8.7 -2. Require new development to provide adequate drainage and erosion
control facilities that convey site drainage in a non - erosive manner in
order to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff, erosion and
other hydrologic impacts to streams.
2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in
areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a
geologic /soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards
affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation
measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for
the proposed development and that the development will be safe from
geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed
Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject
to review and approval by the City.
2.8.7 -4. Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to reflect the best
available standards for seismic safety design.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-67
2.8.8 Fire
Due to its weather, topography and native vegetation, the entire southern California
area is at risk from wildland fires. The extended droughts characteristic of
California's Mediterranean climate result in large areas of dry vegetation that provide
fuel for wildland fires. Furthermore, the native vegetation typically has a high oil
content that makes it highly flammable. The area is also intermittently impacted by
Santa Ana winds; the hot, dry winds that blow across southern California in the
spring and late fall, often igniting and /or spreading fires. Combine these conditions
with the fact that more people than ever are living and playing in wildland areas, and
the potential for major wildland fires to occur increases even further.
Fires usually last only a few hours or days,
but their effects can last much longer. An
intense wildland fire may destroy all the
vegetation. The fire also destroys most of
the roots that hold the soil in place, allowing
running water to wash the soil away. In
addition, the organic material in the soil may
be burned away or decompose into water -
repellent substances that prevent water
from percolating into the soil. As a result,
even normal rainfall can cause exceptional
1993 Laguna Canyon fire advancing towards Newport erosion, flooding and debris flows from a
Beach burned area. The 1993 Laguna Canyon
wildland fire burned 17,000 acres, destroyed
366 homes, and forced the evacuation of Laguna Beach's 24,000 residents. In
1997, wildland fires charred many areas of southern California, leaving them barren
before the next winter's heavy El Nino rainfall. Of the 25 large southern California
wildland fires that occurred that year, ten produced debris flows after the first major
winter storm, and flooding plagued eight other areas. Only four burn areas showed
little erosion or runoff.
Flood control facilities may be severely taxed by the increased flow from the
denuded hillsides and the resulting debris that washes down. Recreation areas that
have been affected may also be forced to close or operate at a reduced scale. In
addition, the buildings that are destroyed by fire are usually eligible for
reassessment, which reduces income to local governments from property taxes.
In the aftermath of the 1993 Laguna Canyon fire, Newport Beach fire officials, in
cooperation with federal, state, county, and other local officials, began analyzing the
conditions that allowed this fire and others to occur. The areas at greatest risk of
wildland fires are homes and structures in and around the urban wildland interface
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-68
areas. These areas include lower Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, the mouth of Big
Canyon, and Spyglass Canyon.
Newport Beach employs two different methods for reducing the risk of fire in these
urban wildland interface areas: hazard reduction and fuel modification. Both
methodologies use the principle of reducing the amount of combustible fuel
available, which reduces the amount of heat, associated flame lengths, and the
intensity of the fire that would threaten the adjoining structures. Hazard reduction
reduces the amount of fuel within 100 feet of any structure, thus creating a
defensible space used to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire and to
create an area for firefighters to suppress the fire and save the structure. Fuel
modification zone establishes a ribbon of land surrounding the homes designed to
diminish the intensity of a wildfire as it approaches the homes. A fuel modification
zone differs from a hazard reduction zone through a combination of methodologies,
including the removal of native vegetation replaced with fire resistive plant species,
as well as the reduction of amount of native combustible vegetation.
In addition to reduction of the vegetation hazards, areas regulated by fuel
modification requirements are also required to "harden" the structures immediately
adjacent to the wildland area. This "hardening" is done by providing automatic fire
sprinkler protection, installation of class "A" roof assemblies, installation of dual
glazed windows, one -hour fire resistive construction on sides of the structure facing
the wildland area, and the elimination of any combustible exterior structural
elements, such as patio covers.
Policies:
Apply hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce
wildfire hazards to existing and new development in urban wildland
interface areas.
2.8.8 -2. Site and design new development to avoid fire hazards and the need
to extend fuel modification zones into sensitive habitats.
2.8.8 -3. Use fire- resistive, native plant species from the City- approved plant list
in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats.
2.8.8 -4. Prohibit invasive ornamental plant species in fuel modification zones
abutting sensitive habitats.
2.8.8 -5. Continue to maintain a database of parcels in urban wildland interface
areas.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2-69
2.8.8 -6. Continue annual inspections of parcels in the urban wildland interface
areas and, if necessary, direct the property owner to bring the property
into compliance with fire inspection standards.
2.8.8 -7. Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to reflect the best
available standards for fire safety design.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -70
2.9 Transportation
2.9.1 Public Transit
The City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance requires new
nonresidential developments that are estimated to employ 100 or more employees to
reduce the number of peak - period vehicle trips, promote and encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation, and provide support facilities for alternative
modes of transportation.
Bus Transportation
Public transportation services in Newport
Beach are provided by the Orange County
Transportation Authority District (OCTA) and
consist of regular fixed -route service. OCTA
operates the Newport Beach Transportation
Center at Avocado and San Joaquin Hills
Road. Demand for bus service from the inland
areas to Newport Beach is intensified during
the summer peak months. OCTA adds buses
to beach routes most in demand to offset the
increased load.
The City's Subdivision Code provides for the
dedication of transit facilities, such as bus
turnouts, benches, shelters and similar
facilities, by new development. The City's
Public Works Department coordinates with
OCTA on the location of transit facilities.
Bus parking area in Balboa Village
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -71
Water Transportation
Balboa Island Ferry
The Balboa Island Ferry has been
providing ferry service from Balboa
Island to the Balboa Peninsula since
1906. Three ferries shuttle automobiles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists across the
Newport Channel, an average of one
thousand people a day.
The 500 - passenger Catalina Flyer
provides daily passenger service from
Newport Beach to Avalon on Catalina
Island, transporting an average of
81,700 people each year.
The City supports expanded use of water transportation uses linking the Harbor with
other visitor - serving and recreation destinations and providing cross - Harbor service.
Polices:
2.9.1 -1. Continue to implement the Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance.
2.9.1 -2. Continue to require new development to dedicate transit facilities, such as
bus turnouts, benches, shelters and similar facilities, where appropriate.
2.9.1 -3. Locate and design larger commercial and residential developments to be
served by transit and provide non - automobile circulation to serve new
development to the greatest extent possible.
2.9.1 -4. Encourage the use of commercial and institutional parking areas for use
as public parking during weekends and holidays in conjunction with public
transit or shuttles to serve coastal recreational areas.
2.9.1 -5. Encourage OCTA to continue and expand summer bus service to coastal
recreational areas.
2.9.1 -6. Maintain and enhance existing public water transportation services and
encourage and provide incentives for expansion of these uses and land
support facilities.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -72
2.9.1 -7. The City shall study alternative funding mechanisms to provide a low -cost
public transportation system to serve beach areas impacted by traffic
during summertime, peak -use periods. The City shall address feasible
implementation measures for a summertime shuttle or other transit
opportunities in the Implementation Plan of the LCP.
2.9.1 -8. Employment, retail, and entertainment districts and coastal recreational
areas should be well served by public transit and easily accessible to
pedestrians and bicyclists. Streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and
recreational trails (including the Coastal Trail) should be designed and
regulated to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.
2.9.1 -9. The City shall encourage employers to provide incentives for transit
ridership (e.g. subsidies for transit use, shuttles to transit stations),
ridesharing, vanpools, and other transportation demand measures
designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
2.9.1 -10. Encourage new developments to design projects to facilitate transit
ridership and ridesharing through such means as locating and designing
building entries that are convenient to pedestrians and transit riders.
2.9.2 Bikeways and Trails
Newport Beach provides an extensive system
of bikeways and trails to serve bicyclists,
equestrians, and pedestrians (see Bikeways
and Trails Map). In addition to providing coastal
access and recreational opportunities, these
bikeways and trails also facilitate alternative
modes of transportation.
Policies:
2.9.2 -1. Maintain, expand, and encourage
the use of bikeways and trails as
alternative circulation routes.
2.9.2 -2. Continue to cooperate with state,
federal, county and local agencies
to coordinate bikeways and trails
throughout the region.
Bicycle racks at 32ntl Street end
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -73
2.9.2 -3. Develop and implement a uniform signing program to assist the public
in locating, recognizing, and utilizing public bikeways and trails.
2.9.2 -4. Design and site new development to provide connections to existing
and proposed bikeways and trail systems.
2.9.2 -5. Where appropriate, provide bicycle racks and hitching posts at public
beaches and parks.
2.9.2 -6. Require new non - residential developments with floor areas of 10,000
square feet or more to provide bicycle racks for use by customers.
Encourage smaller non - residential developments to provide such
facilities, when feasible.
2.9.2 -7. Require new non - residential developments with a total for 100 or more
employees to provide bicycle racks, lockers, and showers for use by
employees and tenants who commute by bicycle. Encourage smaller
non - residential developments to provide such facilities, when feasible.
Note: See Section 3.1 for public access policies.
2.9.3 Parking
Parking in the coastal zone is a major issue in Newport Beach. Surveys indicate that
the current supply is generally adequate in the winter for both residents and visitors.
During the summer the demand for parking increases. During peak summer
weekends, parking demand associated with beach and bay uses is virtually
unlimited.
Commercial
All of the commercial areas in the coastal zone were originally developed at a time
when little or no off - street parking was required. Therefore, a number of properties
do not conform to current off - street parking requirements. In many coastal zone
commercial areas, commercial parking demand is accommodated by on- street
parking spaces and in public lots. This has created conflicts between commercial
uses, residential uses, and coastal zone visitors.
The City's off - street parking regulations are consistent with other coastal
communities and are adequate to meet land use demands. Therefore, new
development will be required to provide adequate off - street parking.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -74
The coastal zone's main commercial areas were studied during the summer of 2002
to determine if there is adequate parking. Field observations and analysis were
conducted to inventory and review current parking conditions. A forecast of future
parking adequacy was also conducted using a parking analysis model.
West Newport. West Newport is a
commercial strip on the north side of
West Coast Highway between the
Semeniuk Slough and the city limits.
Of the 258 parking spaces, there are
4 R >a '" slightly more private off - street spaces
(57 %) than public on- street spaces.
There are also 174 public spaces on
the south side of West Coast Highway
rF dill "' in the West Newport Park lots and on
���. � � Seashore Drive. The 2002 field
I observations indicate there is
adequate parking on the north side of
West Newport commercial West Coast Highway to meet land use
demands. Public spaces along the
south side were occupied with residential vehicles in the early morning and were
replaced with beach traffic in the afternoon until the evening when residential
vehicles returned.
The parking analysis model indicates that parking in this area should be adequate to
accommodate demand. Beach users mainly use the parking on the south side and it
is anticipated that none of these spaces are needed to serve demand from the north
side of the highway.
Mariner's Mile. The Mariner's Mile commercial area is located on Coast Highway
between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive. Marine - related, visitor serving, and
entertainment businesses dominate the Mariner's Mile waterfront. Therefore, most
coastal zone visitors in this area are patrons of these businesses. The vast majority
(87 %) of 3,245 parking spaces in Mariner's Mile are private spaces designated for
use by business patrons. The 2002 field observations indicate there is adequate
parking during daytime hours, but that parking facilities reach effective capacity
during evening hours, due to the concentration of restaurants and entertainment
establishments.
The parking analysis model indicates that a parking shortage should be experienced
in the Mariner's Mile area during the weekday midday hours. This discrepancy with
the 2002 field observations indicate that the area is experiencing a higher than
normal amount of multi - purpose trips, and /or trips by alternative mode than
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -75
estimated in the parking requirements or that some land uses may not be open
during the weekday midday hours as anticipated in the parking estimates.
Balboa Peninsula. Lido /McFadden includes the
Lido, Civic Center, Cannery Village, and Newport
Pier commercial areas. The majority (56 %) of
5,393 parking spaces in Lido /McFadden are in
public lots and on- street. In Balboa Village, the vast
majority (73 %) of 1,267 parking spaces are in public
lots and on- street. The 2002 field observations
indicate that on both weekdays and weekends,
public lots are used more heavily than any other
type of parking and private lots have the lowest
occupancy. Parking analysis indicates parking
shortfalls in both Lido /McFadden and Balboa
Village.
Marine Avenue. Marine Avenue is a retail district
on Balboa Island that is popular with residents and
coastal zone visitors. Of the 134 parking spaces, Balboa Pier parking lot
there are slightly more public on- street spaces
(57 %) than private off - street spaces. The 2002 field observations indicate that
parking is routinely at or above capacity and that parking demand extends well
beyond the blocks immediately surrounding the business area.
Marine Avenue on Balboa Island
The model indicates a significant latent
demand for parking in this area. The
density of development along Marine
Avenue and the pedestrian- oriented
character of the development create a
unique condition in this area. Land
uses in the area generate trips with a
much higher than normal amount of
multi - purpose stops. In addition, many
of the existing land uses cater to the
needs of the local residents who walk
to and from the sites, as well as to
visitors. Therefore, the actual parking
demand is less than the model is
predicting. However, the demand is still
much higher than the current supply.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -76
Corona del Mar. Corona del Mar is a commercial strip along East Coast Highway
between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive. Only the south side of this commercial
area is located within the coastal zone. The vast majority (88 %) of 2,031 parking
spaces in Corona del Mar are private spaces designated for use by business
patrons. The 2002 field observations indicate there is adequate parking to meet land
use demands.
The parking analysis model indicates that existing supply is more than adequate for
the existing uses. Overestimated demand may be caused by a higher than expected
number of multi - purpose trips or differences in the anticipated split of modes of
transportation. Because of the amount of private parking in this area versus public
spaces, it is less likely to have a large amount of shared parking occurring because
of temporal differences in parking demand.
Residential
Most of the residential areas in the coastal zone were also developed at a time when
there was little need for automobile parking. However, unlike commercial areas, high
market demand has resulted in continual remodeling and reconstruction of
residential properties. New dwelling units and remodels resulting in an increase in
the number of habitable rooms are required to meet current off - street parking
requirements.
Street parking on the Balboa Peninsula
While remodels and reconstruction have increased
the amount of off - street parking, parking problems
continue in coastal zone residential areas.
Residential dwelling units with nonconforming
parking continue to exist. Also, some garages are
used for purposes other then parking, including
storage, office space, or living areas. The
popularity and demographics of the coastal zone
sometimes leads to dwelling units with more people
and automobiles than in inland areas. Illegal
dwelling units also add to parking demand. Finally,
some people simply prefer to use curbside parking
due for convenience, particularly in areas where
garages are accessed via narrow alleys. As a
result, a significant number of coastal zone
residents use public street parking or public lots
instead of private off - street parking.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -77
Policies:
2.9.3 -1. Site and design new development to avoid use of parking
configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to
maintain and enforce.
2.9.3 -2. Continue to require new development to provide off - street parking
sufficient to serve the approved use in order to minimize impacts to
public on- street and off - street parking available for coastal access.
2.9.3 -3. Require that all proposed development maintain and enhance public
access to the coast by providing adequate parking pursuant to the off -
street parking regulations of the Zoning Code in effect as of October
13, 2005.
2.9.3 -4. Periodically review and update off - street parking requirements to
ensure that new development provides off - street parking sufficient to
serve approved uses.
2.9.3 -5. Continue to require off - street parking in new development to have
adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use.
2.9.3 -6. Prohibit new development that would result in restrictions on public
parking that would impede or restrict public access to beaches, trails or
parklands, (including, but not limited to, the posting of "no parking"
signs, red curbing, and physical barriers), except where such
restrictions are needed to protect public safety and where no other
feasible alternative exists to provide public safety.
2.9.3 -7. If public parking restrictions are allowed to protect public safety, require
new development to provide an equivalent quantity of public parking
nearby as mitigation for impacts to coastal access and recreation,
where feasible.
2.9.3 -8. Continue to require properties with nonconforming parking to provide
code - required off - street parking when new uses, alterations or
additions result in increased parking demand.
2.9.3 -9. Approve no application for a modification or waiver of off - street parking
requirements that are found to impact public parking available for
coastal access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -78
2.9.3 -10. Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street
parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create new public parking
wherever feasible.
2.9.3 -11. Continue to require alley access to parking areas for all new
development in areas where alley access exists.
2.9.3 -12. Provide incentives to encourage lot consolidation where lots are of
insufficient size to accommodate on -site parking and sufficient
commercial intensity of development.
2.9.3 -13. Encourage commercial and institutional development located near
beaches and other coastal resources to provide parking for public
access during weekends and holidays.
2.9.3 -14. Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas that
achieve the following:
• Provides adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests,
business patrons, and visitors of the coastal zone;
■ Optimizes use of existing parking spaces;
• Provides for existing and future land uses;
• Reduces traffic congestion;
• Limits adverse parking impacts on user groups;
• Provides improved parking information and signage;
• Generates reasonable revenues to cover City costs;
• Accommodates public transit and alternative modes of
transportation.
2.9.3 -15. Set in -lieu parking fees commensurate with actual market value for the
provision of off - street parking.
2.9.3 -16. Continue to rigorously enforce parking ordinances.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -79
f _ City of Newport Beach, California
t? Local Coastal Program
`e ° Coastal Land Use Plan
-
.,
A VV
S.
10�
City Boundary
Banning Ranch
Deferred Certification Area
West Newport
Figure 2.1.3 -1
Local Coastal Program 0 250 500 1.000
Coastal Land Use Plan p
Icp_lu am ntl Fgum2 -1 -8-1 ,mxd July12009 2-82
�P� 1
7TTT'f—1 1 `♦ i PJ
TURNING vr� r ,�� Coastal ZoneBoundary
a�
�P BASIN,
�w
.. r kill
Cash Mesa E • .. 4'. x
cityflMne
Balboa Bay Club
PaceSC OCean �' oti s \I r /r /
kTI ... 0
Mariner's Mile
Figure 2.1.4 -1 e
9
... #,
I` Local Coastal Program o z5o soo i.o
Fee
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -0O0 p
kp Iu_ementl Rgum24 -0 -0..d July /2009
J ='
m
14
TURNING
8. A :SIN
�: Lido Marina Village :':
�` Lido Vllage ��.
VIA CI
Cann
Lido Village / Cannery e
{. °w?� Lido Peninsula I McFadden
- "' `m Figure 2.1.5 -1
Local Coastal Program o 250 Soo 1.000
\ Coastal Land Use Plan 2-84 Feet
Icp W_a—. Fig.1.2.1 5-1 -x JVIy12WP
x
F-
X
15th Street
p
Figure 2.1.5 -2
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan oGG
Icp_lu 3men4 Figure2-0 5 2. -z ApnI000i 2 -85
e
0 125 250 500
Feel
CM'- arrNne
I
' Crtya r � ir5:
?� ag�I0e 8eachi i +'
Balboa Village
RN Figure 2.1.5 -3
' Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
e
0 130 260 520
Feet
Agate Ave
J�
W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _
�, ManneAve VT$'
Mw° a Y
" O €.
CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO
BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE
J. z
rF ADO Q
Z PARK AVE p
12 250. ?s,3Y:50
F rl
2 -87
LIMA
Balboa Island Commercial
4
Figure 2.1.6 -1
c r%
A£ J
fl
X
cayor
y
corm hlo5a
\
cM orlrvi�re
��
v
rt
guna Beach 0 °: <:.'. 75
as
J�
W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _
�, ManneAve VT$'
Mw° a Y
" O €.
CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO
BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE
J. z
rF ADO Q
Z PARK AVE p
12 250. ?s,3Y:50
F rl
2 -87
LIMA
Balboa Island Commercial
4
Figure 2.1.6 -1
c r%
A£ J
fl
X
cayor
y
corm hlo5a
\
cM orlrvi�re
��
Pacific Ocean rf
rt
guna Beach 0 °: <:.'. 75
as
J�
W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _
�, ManneAve VT$'
Mw° a Y
" O €.
CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO
BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE
J. z
rF ADO Q
Z PARK AVE p
12 250. ?s,3Y:50
F rl
2 -87
LIMA
Balboa Island Commercial
Figure 2.1.6 -1
c r%
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
Icn Li —M Piniim? -IA -1 mA AnnWW7
J�
W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _
�, ManneAve VT$'
Mw° a Y
" O €.
CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO
BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE
J. z
rF ADO Q
Z PARK AVE p
12 250. ?s,3Y:50
F rl
2 -87
LIMA
Balboa Bay Tennis Club
a
�{ Figure 2.7.8 -1
t` Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
2 -89
0 125 250 500
Feet
3.0 Public Access and Recreation
3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access
3.1.1 Shoreline Access
In terms of implementing the Coastal Act, there are two basic types of public access:
vertical access, or access to the shoreline, and lateral access, or access along the
shoreline. Newport Beach has developed an extensive system of access to ocean
beaches and the bay (see Coastal Access Map). Virtually all of the Pacific Ocean
shoreline beaches are public and the bay is accessible via public beaches, parks,
shoreline trails, walkways and boardwalks. The City will continue to require all new
development, causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, to provide
easements or dedications in areas where public access is inadequate.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -1
Pacific Ocean Beaches
West Newport/Balboa Peninsula West
Newport and the Balboa Peninsula
have over 5 miles of wide, sandy
beaches. Vertical access to these
beaches is provided by 89 street ends,
which occur every 200 to 500 feet. The
Oceanfront Boardwalk runs along the
beach for approximately 3 miles from
36th Street in West Newport to F Street
on the Peninsula. This multi -use
concrete walkway is 12 to 22 foot wide
and is popular with pedestrians,
bicyclists, and skaters.
Oceanfront Boardwalk at I Street
Corona del Mar. City- operated Corona del Mar State Beach (Big Corona) is a half
mile -long sandy beach located southerly of the Newport Harbor entrance. Vertical
access to this beach is provided by an access road near the intersection of Ocean
Boulevard and Jasmine Avenue and by walkways at Lookout Point and Inspiration
Point view parks on Ocean Boulevard.
Little Corona Beach is a small sandy cove with rocky intertidal platform reefs. The
Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is offshore. Vertical access is provided by
a walkway at Poppy Avenue (Glen Drive). The Newport Beach Marine Conservation
Area contains natural habitats and the provision of additional public access on Little
Corona Beach must be consistent with the protection of these resources.
Big Corona
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -2
Lower Newoort Bay /Harbor
Waterfront commercial areas also provide
vertical and lateral access to Lower Newport
Bay. Commercial developments in Lido Village,
Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa
Village and on the Lido Peninsula provide public
access easements to and along the waterfront.
In most cases, these easements have been
integrated into the project's design, such as
restaurants with outdoor waterfront dining areas
and boarding areas for charter and excursion
vessels.
New development will present additional
opportunities to extend and enhance waterfront
access in these areas. Particular attention
should be given to extending the Lido Manna
Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront
commercial properties in Lido Village and to
provide a continuous waterfront walkway along
the Rhine Channel to connect the Cannery Lido Marina Village boardwalk
Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach
at 1grh Street. A connection from Lido Village to Mariner's Mile should also be
provided, if feasible.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -3
Mariner's Mile. The Mariner's Mile is a
commercial area with a shoreline
consisting of bulkheads. Commercial
and institutional developments in
Mariner's Mile provide public access
easements to and along the waterfront.
Although the easements are
fragmented, with new development,
there is an opportunity to provide a
continuous waterfront walkway from the
Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard
Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club.
Bayside. The Bayside area shoreline Mariners Mile
consists mainly of bulkheads, with a few small beaches. Beacon Bay Beach (Lot 1) is
accessible from Beacon Bay Drive via walkways at the Cape Cove, Shelter Cove,
and Reef Cove Street ends. Bayside Drive County Beach is accessible from
Bayside Drive via the Orange County Harbor Patrol facility. Lateral access to
Promontory Bay is provided by a walkway along Bayside Drive and a public access
easement along the bulkhead adjacent to Newport Marina Apartments. This public
access easement connects to a quarter mile walkway on a floating dock in the
Balboa Island Channel. Lateral access is also provided around the Balboa Yacht
Basin.
Balboa Island.
Corona del Mar. Corona del Mar's bayside
shoreline is at the harbor entrance and is
characterized by high coastal bluffs with a few
small sandy coves. China Cove is accessible from
Cove Street and Shell Street. Rocky Point (Pirate's
Cove) is accessible by a trail at Lookout Point on
Ocean Boulevard and Corona del Mar State Beach.
There is also a small pocket park in an unnamed
street end off of the 2300 block of Bayside Drive
that provides access to Carnation Cove.
Lido Isle. On Lido Isle, vertical access to the Lower
Bay is provided by walkways within 13 street end
easements. These street ends are leased to Lido
Isle Association with the condition that the
association maintain and operate all walkways in a
manner that allows for open public access. There
are also public beaches at Via Genoa (Parcel B)
and at Via Trieste (Parcel C).
All of Balboa Island's beaches are public. There are 33 street ends
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3-4
that provide vertical access and the Bay Front Boardwalk that circles the island
enhances lateral access. There are also 4 street ends that provide access to the
Grand Canal.
Upper Newport Bay
The Upper Newport Bay is coastal
wetlands bordered by 40 to 100 -foot high
bluffs. Most of the Upper Newport Bay
area is in the Upper Newport Bay Marine
Park. Due to the steep coastal bluffs and
high number of sensitive environmental
resources within the marine park, access
is more restricted than other coastal
areas. Still, ample public access is
available.
The 752 -acre Upper Newport Bay Marine
Park preserves one of the largest coastal Upper Newport Bay Marine Park
wetlands in Southern California. In
addition to protecting its diverse habitats, the marine park provides canoe, kayak,
and walking tours. Shellmaker Island in the marine park serves as a staging area
for tours of the Upper Newport Bay. Shellmaker Island is only open to the public
when programs and tours are scheduled and is accessible from Back Bay Drive.
The marine park is also accessible from University Drive and Back Bay Drive.
Back Bay Drive
The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve is
located on the bluffs on the north and northwest
sides of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park.
This 140 -acre regional park provides hiking, bike,
equestrian trails to and along the marine park.
The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve is
accessible from University Drive and Bayview
Way.
Access to and along the Upper Newport Bay is
also provided by Back Bay Drive, a 3.5 -mile multi -
model road that runs along the base of the bluff on
the easterly side of the bay. Back Bay Drive
begins at Jamboree Road and ends at East Bluff
Drive, where it connects with a trail that continues
west of Jamboree Road and along San Diego
Creek into central Orange County. The Lookout at
the corner of Back Bay Drive and East Bluff Drive serves
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -5
as a staging area for tours of the bay.
On the west side of the bay, access is provided via North Star Beach. North Star
Beach has a sandy beach and is the site of the Newport Aquatics Center, a public
recreation and launching facility. North Star Beach is accessible from White Cliffs
Drive, off of Polaris Drive. The area north of the Newport Aquatics Center contains
natural habitats and the provision of additional public access in this area must be
consistent with the protection of these resources.
On the east side of the bay, access is provided by Big Canyon Nature Park. Big
Canyon Nature Park is a passive open space area that provides hiking trails from
Jamboree Road to the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. The mouth of Big Canyon
contains natural habitats and the provision of additional public access must be
consistent with the protection of these resources.
Semeniuk Slough
Semeniuk Slough, also referred to as the Oxbow Loop, is a coastal salt marsh. The
slough is accessible via 9 street ends in Newport Shores and the Newport Shores
View Park. The provision of public access must be consistent with the protection of
the adjacent natural resources.
Policies:
3.1.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand
and enhance public access to and
along the shoreline and to beaches,
coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks,
and trails.
3.1.1 -2. Protect and enhance all existing public
street ends providing public access to
the shoreline, beaches, coastal parks,
and trails.
3.1.1 -3. Develop and implement a uniform
coastal access signing program to
assist the public in locating,
recognizing, and utilizing public access
trails. Where appropriate, include
information advising the public of
environmentally sensitive habitats,
safety hazards, and to respect adjacent
private property.
Boardwalk through coastal sage scrub habitat
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -6
3.1.1 -4. Identify and remove all unauthorized structures, including signs and
fences, which inhibit public access.
3.1.1 -5. Allow public access improvements in environmentally sensitive habitat
areas (ESHA) when sited, designed, and maintained in a manner to
avoid or minimize impacts to the ESHA.
3.1.1 -6. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, the State Coastal
Conservancy, Orange County, and private organizations to protect,
expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to
beaches, coastal parks, and trails.
3.1.1 -7. Continue to protect the public's right of access to the sea where acquired
through historic use or legislative authorization. Where substantial
evidence of prescriptive rights exists, actively pursue public acquisition
or require access easements as a condition for new development.
3.1.1 -8. Where there is substantial evidence that prescriptive rights of access to
the beach exist on a parcel, development on that parcel must be
designed, or conditions must be imposed, to avoid interference with the
prescriptive rights that may exist or to provide alternative, equivalent
access.
3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that
achieves the following:
• 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 transportation;
• Minimizes alterations to natural landforms;
• Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas;
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -7
Does not violate private property rights.
3.1.1 -10. Cooperate with state agencies in planning and implementing the
Newport Beach segment of the California Coastal Trail.
3.1.1 -11. Require new development to
minimize impacts to public
access to and along the
shoreline.
3.1.1 -12. Implement building design
and siting regulations to
protect public access
through setback and other
property development
regulations of the Zoning
Code that control building
placement.
Walkway and bikeway along Promontory Bay
3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication
or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for
all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public
access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the
limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed
point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of
sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of
deck, or toe of bluff).
3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement
for vertical access in all new development projects causing or
contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access
is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to
accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and
should be sited along the border or side property line of the project site
or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible
extent.
3.1.1 -15. Encourage the acceptance, improvement and opening of OTDs to the
public by the City, a public agency, a private association, or other
appropriate entity.
3.1.1 -16. Require all direct dedications or OTDs for public access to be made to a
public agency or other appropriate entity that will operate the accessway
on behalf of the public. Require accessways to be opened to the public
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -8
once an appropriate entity accepts responsibility for maintenance and
liability.
3.1.1 -17. Require new development in waterfront commercial areas to provide
public access easements to and along the waterfront. Where
appropriate, integrate public access easements into the project designs,
such as restaurants with outdoor waterfront dining areas and boarding
areas for charter and excursion vessels.
3.1.1 -18. Require new development
on ocean- fronting,
residentially zoned properties
located between the Santa
Ana River Jetties and the
Newport Harbor West Jetty
to conform to the setback
requirements of the Zoning
Code in effect as of October
13, 2005 to prevent impacts
to public access.
3.1.1 -19.
Develop and implement a
long -range plan for public 15'h Street Beach
trails and walkways to
access all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor.
3.1.1 -20. Extend the Lido Marina Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront
commercial properties in Lido Village.
3.1.1 -21. Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel
connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square waterfront
commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 19"' Street.
3.1.1 -22. Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariner's Mile,
if feasible.
3.1.1 -23. Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariner's Mile waterfront from
the Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club.
3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where
feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public
accessibility.
3.1.1 -25. Where marine sales and service equipment and operations present
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -9
security or public safety concerns, waterfront access detours may be
necessary in some areas in order to maintain facilities and services
essential to the operation of the harbor.
3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from
the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline 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.
3.1.1 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes 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;
• Management and maintenance of the access;
• The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners
and the public's constitutional rights of access.
3.1.1 -28. Encourage the creation of waterfront public spaces and beaches, with
adjacent water access and docking facilities that serves as the identity
and activity "centers" of Newport Harbor for special events of
community/regional interest.
Balboa Pier
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -10
1
Balboa Pier
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -10
3.1.2. Bluff Top Access
In addition to direct access to and along the shoreline, Newport Beach has worked to
preserve a number of prominent bluff top locations for public viewing of the shoreline
(see Coastal Access and Recreation Map).
Castaways View Park
West Newport. The Sunset View Park provides an ocean view trail along the bluff
top above the lower campus of Hoag Hospital. This park is accessible from Superior
Avenue. The planned extension of this park to Superior Avenue will provide a
connection to a bluff top trail in a park planned on the undeveloped CalTrans West
property. Connections to future bluff top trails and parks developed in conjunction
with future development in the Banning Ranch property present the opportunity for a
continuous bluff top trail through West Newport.
Lookout Point
Newport Heights /Cliff Haven. Cliff Drive Park,
Ensign Park, and Kings Road Park are located on
the bluff top above Mariner's Mile and Coast
Highway. These parks provide views of the
Lower Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Cliff Drive
Park and Ensign Park are accessible from Cliff
Drive. Kings Road Park is accessible from Kings
Road.
Corona del Mar. A half -mile linear view park that
provides spectacular views of the harbor entrance
and Pacific Ocean is located along the bluff top
above Corona del Mar State Beach. The park
begins at Lookout Point above Pirate's Cove and
runs along Ocean Boulevard to Inspiration Point
at the end of Orchid Avenue.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -11
Upper Newport Bay. Castaways
Park is a 17.4 -acre view park.
Castaways Park has bike and hiking
trails and overlooks that provide
panoramic views of the Newport
Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
Castaways Park is accessible from
Dover Drive and Polaris Drive.
Castaways Park contains natural
habitats, which are separated and
protected from public recreation and
viewing areas.
Westcliff Park, Galaxy Park, and
Bayview Park are bluff top parks Bluff habitat protected at Castaways Park
that provide views of the Upper
Newport Bay. Westcliff Park is accessible from Polaris Drive. Galaxy Park is
accessible from Galaxy Drive. Bayview Park is accessible from Mesa Drive.
The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve is a 140 -acre regional park that surrounds
the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. The park provides hiking, bike, and equestrian
trails and is accessible from Irvine Avenue, University Drive and Bayview Way.
Newporter Knoll is a 12 -acre passive open space area located on the bluff above
Shellmaker Island. The 4 -acre Newporter North View Park is adjacent and provides
a bluff top trail and overlook. The Newporter North View Park is accessible from San
Joaquin Hills Road. Both areas contain natural habitats and the provision of
additional public access must be consistent with the protection these resources.
A 10.74 -acre passive open space and view park is planned for the bluff above the
Newport Dunes. The Upper Bayview Landing park site is located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. This park will
provide views of the bay and serve as a staging area for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Policies:
3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and
along coastal bluffs.
3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to
avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs (see Section 4.4.3).
3.1.2 -3. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation,
the State Department of Fish and Game, the State Coastal Conservancy,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -12
Orange County, and private organizations to protect, expand and enhance
public access to and along coastal bluffs.
3.1.3 Beach Encroachments
On June 11, 1991, the Coastal
Commission approved the Oceanfront
Encroachment Policy (Amendment No. 1
23), which established a policy and -rt
mitigation program relating to private
improvements within the Oceanfront `
public right -of -way. The City Council
finalized this policy with the adoption of
Resolution No. 91 -80 on July 11, 1991.
This policy established conditions and
restrictions on the nature and extent of
these improvements and a mitigation
program involving the reconstruction of West Newport street end
33 unimproved street ends between 36th
Street and Summit Street to provide additional parking and improved public access.
In 2002, the final five street ends were reconstructed. Pursuant to the mitigation
program, a minimum of 85 percent of the encroachment fees will be used for the
construction and maintenance of improvements which directly benefit the beach -
going public such as parking spaces, restrooms, vertical or lateral walkways along
the beach and similar projects.
Policies:
3.1.3 -1. Continue to maintain and improve the Oceanfront public right -of -way for
public access purposes.
3.1.3 -2. Continue to restrict the nature and extent of improvements that may be
installed over public rights of way on the oceanside of beachfront
residences and to preserve the City's right to utilize oceanfront street
easements for public projects.
3.1.3 -3. Limit the maximum oceanward extent of encroachments to the following
encroachment zones:
A. Santa Ana River to 52nd Street. A maximum of 15 feet oceanward of
the rear (ocean facing) property line within the oceanward prolongation
of the side property lines.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -13
B. 52nd Street to 36th Street. A maximum of 10 feet oceanward of the
rear (ocean facing) property line within the oceanward prolongation of
the side property lines.
C. 36th Street to E Street. Between A Street and a point 250 feet
southeast of E Street, up to the inland edge of the Oceanfront
Boardwalk (7 to 8 feet oceanward of the rear property line) and within
an oceanward prolongation of the side property lines.
D. E Street to Channel Road. No encroachments are permitted from a
point 250 feet southeast of E Street to Channel Road, with the
exception of landscaping trees existing prior to October 22, 1991 and
groundcover.
3.1.3 -4. Limit encroachments within encroachment zones as follows:
A. Prohibit any structural, electrical, plumbing or other improvements
that require issuance of a building permit.
B. Prohibit pressurized irrigation lines and valves.
C. Prohibit any object that exceeds 36 inches in height, with the
exception of landscaping.
D. Prohibit any encroachments that impact public access, recreation,
views and /or coastal resources.
E. Require landscapi ng to be designed and maintained to avoid impacts
to public access and views.
F. Restrict landscaping in dune habitat areas to native vegetation.
3.1.3 -5. Require annual renewal of encroachment permits and a fee.
3.1.3 -6. Require encroachment permits to specify that the property owner waives
and gives up any right to contest the validity of the oceanfront street
easement, and that the encroachment permit is revocable, without cause,
if the City proposes to construct public improvements within that zone.
3.1.3 -7. Require encroachment permits to specify that the construction of any
seawall, revetment or other erosion control devices, if necessary, shall
occur within, or as close as feasible to, private property.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -14
3.1.3 -8. Incorporate into the implementation plan regulations specifying the types
of improvements permitted within encroachment zones, a prohibition on
improvements that could impair or restrict public access or views,
procedures for the encroachment permit applications, City
administration of the policy, and other appropriate provisions.
3.1.3 -9. As mitigation for any impact
on beach access resulting
from the encroachments:
A. Maintain 33 street ends
between 36th Street and
Summit to provide an
average of 2 parking
spaces per street, and
additional spaces where
feasible.
B. Meter West Newport street West Newport street end improvements
end parking spaces in the
same manner as the West
Newport Park in order to encourage public use of the spaces.
C. Maintain a hard surface walkway perpendicular to Seashore Drive at
Orange Avenue. The walkway shall extend oceanward a sufficient
distance to allow a view of the surfline by an individual seated in a
wheelchair. At least one handicapped parking space shall be
designated at the Orange Avenue street end and at least one other
handicapped parking space at one other West Newport street end.
D. Require a minimum of 85 percent of the fees generated by
encroachments will be used for the construction and maintenance of
improvements which directly benefit the beach -going public such as
parking spaces, restrooms, vertical or lateral walkways along the
beach and similar projects.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -15
3.1.4 Bay /Harbor Encroachments
Shore connected structures, such as
piers, floats, and bulkheads have long
been permitted in the bay and harbor.
Newport Beach, in conjunction with
Federal, State, and County agencies, has
established a set of Harbor Lines to
define bayward limits for various types of
structures. Harbor Lines and other
regulations were originally established to
insure navigable channels and safe
harbor operations and to minimize
conflicts with adjacent properties.
However, such regulations are
increasingly used as a means of
protecting public views and public access.
Policies:
Residential piers
3.1.4 -1. Continue to regulate the construction of bay and harbor structures
within established Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead Lines, and Project Lines.
3.1.4 -2. When applicable, continue to require evidence of approval from the
County of Orange, Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and other resource management agencies, prior to issuing
permits.
3.1.4 -3. Design and site piers, including remodels of and additions to existing
piers so as not to obstruct public lateral access and to minimize
impacts to coastal views and coastal resources.
3.1.4 -4. In residential areas, limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to
piers and floats. Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those
related to vessel launching and berthing.
3.1.4 -5. Encourage the joint ownership of piers at the prolongation of common
lot lines as a means of reducing the number of piers along the
shoreline.
3.1.4 -6. Continue to prohibit private piers at street ends.
3.1.4 -7. Design and site bulkheads to protect the character of the existing
shoreline profiles and avoid encroachment onto public tidelands.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -16
3.1.4 -8. Limit bulkhead expansion or encroachment into coastal waters to the
minimum extent necessary to repair, maintain, or replace an existing
bulkhead and do not allow the backfill to create new usable residential
land areas.
3.1.5 Private /Gated Communities
Throughout Southern California, access to the shoreline is restricted to the public
due to private residential communities. Exclusive gated communities in some cases
totally circumvent public access to the shoreline. Such communities present a major
issue in terms of protecting, expanding, and enhancing coastal access.
Most of the shoreline in Newport Beach is publicly owned and accessible. However,
there are a few private residential communities that impede public access to and
along the shoreline. These communities are Balboa Coves, Bay Island, Bayshores,
Bayside Place, Collins Island, De Anza Bayside Village, Linda Isle, and Harbor
Island. Some of these communities are on small private islands. They do not impede
access to public beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs; however, they do
block public access to and along their immediate shoreline. Balboa Coves, Bayside
Place, Bayshores and De Anza Bayside Village are on the mainland, but are situated
so as not to block public access other than to their immediate shoreline. In all of
these areas, the shoreline consists mainly of bulkheads with a few small and isolated
sandy beaches.
De Anza Bayside Village
Balboa Coves. Balboa Coves is a 68 -lot single - family gated community located on
the Newport Island Channel southwest of the Newport Boulevard /Coast Highway
Bridge. The community is accessible from Coast Highway via Balboa Coves, a
private street. The shoreline is on the south side of the community and consists of a
series of manmade coves with narrow sandy beaches.
Bay Island. First developed around 1904, Bay Island is a 25 -unit (currently
developed with 24 units, including one caretaker's unit) single family cooperative on
a private island in the Newport Channel. A gated pedestrian bridge at the end of
Island Avenue connects Bay Island with the Balboa Peninsula. Motor vehicles are
prohibited on the island. Off - street parking for residents is provided at a 48 -space
parking structure located at 501 West Bay Avenue. The shoreline consists mainly of
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -17
bulkheads, with the exception of the east side of the island, which has a relatively
wide sandy beach.
Bayshores. Developed in 1941, Bayshores is a 258 -lot single - family gated
community located on the Lido Channel southwest of the Coast Highway /Newport
Bay Bridge. The 39 -unit Anchorage Apartments is also located within the
community. The community is accessible from Coast Highway via Bay Shores
Drive, a private street. The shoreline is on the south and east sides of the
community and consists of bulkheads and two small sandy beaches.
Bayside Place. Bayside Place is a 7 -lot single - family gated community located off of
the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. The community is accessible from Bayside Drive
via Bayside Place, a private street. The shoreline (Carnation Cove) consists of
bulkheads and rocky beaches. Public access to the shoreline is available at an
adjacent street end pocket park.
Collins Island. Created in 1906, Collins Island is a 7 -lot single - family community on a
private island in the Balboa Island Channel. A gated bridge at the end of Park
Avenue connects Collins Island with Balboa Island. The shoreline consists of
bulkheads.
De Anza Bayside Village. De Anza Bayside Village is a 343 -space mobile home
park located on the Upper Newport Bay adjacent to the Newport Dunes. The
community is accessible to Bayside Drive via Bayside Way, a private street. The
shoreline is on the north side of the community and consists of bulkheads and a
small sandy beach at the community center. The community includes the
undeveloped De Anza / Bayside Marsh Peninsula,
Harbor Island. Developed in 1926,
Harbor Island is a 35 -lot single - family
community on a private island located
between Linda Isle and Collins Island. A
gated bridge connects Harbor Island to
the mainland at the end of Harbor Island
Road. The shoreline consists mainly of
bulkheads. The State, through the
adoption of Chapter 715, Statues of
1984, found that tidelands surrounding
Harbor Island are generally inaccessible
to the public and not suitable for public
trust uses (see Section 2.5.2).
Harbor Island
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -18
Linda Isle. Created in 1933 and developed in the 1960s, Linda Isle is a 107 -lot
single - family community on a private island southwest of the Coast Highway Bridge.
A gated bridge connects Linda Isle to the mainland at Bayside Drive. The shoreline
consists of bulkheads and a small sandy beach.
All of these communities are long established. New development is generally of a
type and scale that does not have a direct adverse impact on existing public access.
Such new development generally consists of additions or demolition and subsequent
reconstruction of existing structures. Requiring public access under such
circumstances would not present a reasonable relationship between the exaction
and a project and would be disproportionate to the impact. However, new
development resulting in significant increases in land use density or intensity would
have the potential to have a direct adverse impact on public access. Similarly, new
development that limits or eliminates private recreational facilities within such
communities could place additional demand on public recreational facilities, including
beaches. Under such circumstances, public access mitigation in a manner
consistent with the public access policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan would be
required.
Policies:
3.1.5 -1. Prohibit new development that incorporate gates, guardhouses, barriers or
other structures designed to regulate or restrict access where they would
inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal
parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
3.1.5 -2. Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private
streets, where such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along
the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
3.1.5 -3. Require public access consistent with public access policies for any new
development in private /gated communities causing or contributing to
adverse public access impacts.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -19
3.1.6 Preferential Parking Districts
Newport Island
In Newport Beach, there is only one
preferential parking district in the
coastal zone. It was established for
Newport Island in 1981 due to
impacts associated with vehicle
parking on streets and alleys by
nonresidents for extended periods of
time. The establishment of the
Newport Island preferential parking
district was determined not to
adversely impact coastal access
and recreation due to the island's
isolated location, lack of beaches
and swimming areas, and narrow
streets.
The establishment of additional preferential parking districts may be necessary
where no other practical or feasible alternative exists to protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare. Under such circumstances, if there is a direct impact to
coastal access or recreation, preferential permit parking fees could be established to
fund mitigation programs.
Policies:
3.1.6 -1. Prohibit the establishment of new preferential parking districts in the
coastal zone except where such restrictions would not have a direct
impact to coastal access, including the ability to use public parking.
3.1.6 -2. Require a coastal development permit to establish new, or modify
existing, preferential parking districts.
3.1.6 -3. Use preferential parking permit fees to fund programs to mitigate
impacts to coastal access.
3.1.6 -4. Where appropriate, establish a graduated preferential parking permit
fee schedule where progressively higher fees are required for each
permit for households with multiple permits.
3.1.6 -5. Limit the number of preferential parking permits issued per household
to reduce potential adverse impacts to public access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -20
3.1.7 Temporary Events
22n° street Beach
Newport Beach's coastal areas have
long been the venue for temporary
events, including film production,
surfing contests, volleyball
tournaments, runs, races, concerts,
boat shows, and other such
competitions, exhibitions, and
events. Also, a number of view
parks have become popular
locations for large private
gatherings. The nature and
frequency of such events has raised
concerns relating to their impact to
coastal resources, public access,
and on adjacent residential areas,
during these events.
Newport Beach regulates temporary events by requiring special event permits. It is
City policy that athletic contests using City streets are not permitted during the
summer (June 15 - September 15). Surfing contests are not permitted during the
Memorial Day weekend or during the summer. There are also limits on the number
of such events that can be conducted each year and a minimum number of weeks
between each surfing contest. However, exceptions can be granted.
Inspiration Point and Lookout Point have become popular locations for weddings and
other events. Peninsula Park is also a popular location for weddings, as well as
company picnics and other private gatherings. Excessive reservations for the use of
these parks has seriously limited public access. Furthermore, the use of these parks
by caterers, party rental companies, professional parry, event, or wedding planners
for private parties presented the appearance of commercialization of public parks.
This prompted the establishment of a policy placing restrictions on reservations from
the Memorial Day weekend to the Labor Day weekend. The number of attendees or
participants at any one time is also restricted.
Policies:
3.1.7 -1. Continue to require special event permits for temporary events and
continue to require applications to provide details on event
characteristics, including duration (including set up /assembly and
break down /dismantle start and completion times), event hours, per
day estimated attendance, parking arrangements, traffic control,
noise control, waste removal, insurance, equipment to be used, food
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -21
service, entertainment, sponsorships, and advertising and marketing
plans.
3.1.7 -2. Condition special event permits for temporary uses in the coastal
zone to minimize impacts to public access, recreation and coastal
resources.
3.1.7 -3. Continue to limit the number and frequency of temporary events in
the coastal zone held from the Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day.
3.1.7 -4. Require a coastal development permit for temporary events held in
the coastal zone that meet all of the following criteria:
1. Held between the Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day;
2. Occupy any portion of a public sandy beach area; and
3. Involve a charge for general public admission where no fee is
currently charged for use of the same area.
A coastal development permit shall also be required for temporary
events that do not meet all of these criteria, but have the potential to
result in significant adverse impacts to public access, recreation
and /or coastal resources.
Penimsua Park
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -22
3.1.8 Temporary Closures
For many years, large crowds have
been drawn to the streets of West
Newport during the Independence
Day holiday. The party
atmosphere that pervades the area
attracts these crowds. Large
parties are held at many of the
rental homes in the area, which
often extend into the front yards
and balconies, and even onto
rooftops. The large crowds, the
consumption of alcohol and the
interaction between partygoers and
Independence Day crowds in West Newpon the crowds In the streets has
resulted in an average of over 170 arrests and over 1,350 citations each year. The
potential for a serious outbreak of violence exists throughout the daylight hours and
increases dramatically in the evening. This environment dissuades visitors and
residents from enjoying the beach or bay during Independence Day.
The City has tried to reduce illegal drinking and minimize the potential for violence by
significantly increasing the number of police and temporarily closing certain streets to
pedestrians and visitors. The street closures do not restrict access to the beach but
do function to fragment the crowds and reduce the number of people parading along
Seashore Drive — an area where most arrests are made. The street closures are
temporary — typically lasting less than twenty -four hours.
Policies:
3.1.8 -1. Pursuant to the Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code, the City may adopt
rules and regulations regarding the temporary closing of portions of any
street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes
when necessary for public safety.
3.1.8 -2. The City may temporarily close certain streets in West Newport for a
period of no more than twenty -four hours during the Independence Day
holiday when, in the opinion of the Police Chief or his designee, the
closure is necessary to protect the public safety. In no event shall any
street closure prevent or interfere with the public's access to the beach or
bay.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -23
3.2 Recreation and Support Facilities
3.2.1 Recreational Opportunities
Throughout its history, Newport Beach has been a
major recreational center. There are over 8 miles of
sandy beaches that provide opportunities for
sunbathing, volleyball, swimming, surfing, windsurfing
and other recreational activities. Beach attendance
averages 9.4 million people annually. Newport Bay
and Harbor are used for a wide variety of recreational
activities, including boating, diving, excursions,
fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, parasailing,
rowing, sailing, swimming, and windsurfing.
The City provides approximately 180 acres of public
parks in the coastal zone (see Coastal Access and
Recreation Map). These parks provide areas and
facilities for a variety of recreational activities. The
City also provides two recreational piers. The 800 -
foot Newport Pier is located at the end of Newport
Boulevard (McFadden Place) in McFadden Square.
Beach near Balboa Pier
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -24
The 950 -foot Balboa Pier is located at the end of Main Street in Balboa Village.
The City also provides ten public docks in the harbor, which can be used for boat
launching and fishing. The City and County also co -own the Newport Aquatic
Center. Located on Northstar Beach, the Newport Aquatic Center provides an
opportunity for the public and members to kayak and canoe in Upper Newport Bay
as well as advanced training facilities for world -class athletes.
The County and the State also operate recreational areas in Newport Beach. The
County's 100 -acre Newport Dunes Aquatic Park provides opportunities for
camping, boating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming and other water and beach
activities. The 752 -acre Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and 140 -acre Upper
Newport Bay Nature Preserve provide opportunities for canoeing, kayaking,
horseback riding, biking, and hiking.
Commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay play an important role in
providing and enhancing recreational activities in the coastal zone. A large number
of businesses provide recreational services to residents and visitors of the coastal
zone. These include charter, entertainment and excursion vessels, sports equipment
rentals, launching facilities, amusement facilities, and shops and restaurants.
Policies:
3.2.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational
opportunities in the coastal zone.
3.2.1 -2. Continue to provide opportunities for a wide range of recreational
activities at City parks and beaches.
3.2.1 -3. Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the
needs of new residents when allowing new development.
3.2.1 -4. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, and Orange
County to protect, expand and enhance opportunities for
recreational activities at County and State beaches and parks.
3.2.1 -5. Continue to allow recreational commercial uses in commercial areas
adjacent to beaches and the bay.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -25
3.2.2 Support Facilities and Services
Newport Beach provides abundant coastal access and recreational opportunities.
However, it is equally important to provide adequate support facilities and services to
enable the public to fully avail themselves of these opportunities. Support facilities
include parking, restrooms and showers. Support services include lifeguard services
and instruction and education programs. It is also important that such facilities and
services be well distributed throughout the area to avoid overcrowding or overuse by
the public (see Support Facilities Map),
The lack of informational signage to direct the public to support facilities can
impede public access. Many of Newport Beach's smaller beaches are difficult to
find and access to some coastal areas is not easily apparent due to intervening
topography or development. Furthermore, coastal visitors seeking support
facilities can impact residents and coastal resources. For example, coastal visitors
searching for parking areas contribute to traffic congestion and noise. Visitors
sometimes damage habitats and bluffs to reach coastal areas when paths or trails
are not clearly identified. A comprehensive coastal access signing program will
reduce these impacts and ease conflicts between property owners and coastal
visitors.
Parking
West Newport. West Newport has over a
mile and a half of wide sandy public
beaches. Public parking is provided
primarily by 240 spaces at West Newport
Park and by on- street parking in the
residential neighborhoods, including an
average of two on- street parking spaces
at beach street -ends between 36th Street
and Summit Street.
Balboa Peninsula. The Balboa Peninsula , "
has over three miles of wide public ' ' {l'll'''
beaches and several smaller bay Palling lot in West Newport Park
beaches. There are over 7,400 public
parking spaces, over half of which are
on- street. The rest are in municipal lots, including 400 spaces in the McFadden
Place /Newport Pier lots and 650 spaces in the Balboa Pier lot.
Balboa Island. Balboa Island has approximately 8 acres of public beaches around
the island. Public parking is provided exclusively by on- street spaces.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -26
Corona del Mar. Corona del Mar has the Corona del Mar State Beach and Little
Corona, China Cove, and Rocky Point beaches. Public parking is provided primarily
by the 540 -space parking lot at the Corona del Mar State Beach and on- street
parking on Ocean Boulevard.
Upper Newport Bay. Public parking for the Upper Newport Bay area is provided at
various recreation areas around the bay. The North Star Beach facility provides an
80 -space parking lot. The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve provides a parking
area with approximately 103 spaces and on- street parking is also available on
University Drive and Bayview Way. The parking for The Lookout at the corner of
Back Bay Drive and Eastbluff Drive is provided on- street at Eastbluff Drive. The
Newport Dunes Aquatic Park provides 784 day use parking spaces; approximately
70 spaces are planned at the Back Bay Science Center at Shellmaker Island.
Recreation and Convenience Facilities
Newport Beach provides a number of
recreational facilities to enhance the
enjoyment of the beaches, bay, and
coastal parks. At the beaches, between 65
and 75 beach volleyball courts are typically
provided and play courts and/or sports
fields are provided at West Newport Park,
Channel Place Park, Newport Island Park,
38th Street Park, Las Arenas Park, Newport
Elementary School, and at the Balboa
Island Community Center. Turf areas
and /or playground equipment are also
provided at most coastal parks. The
County's Newport Dunes Aquatic Park also
provides recreational facilities.
Picnic tables near Newport Pier
Newport Beach provides a number of facilities for the convenience of residents and
coastal visitors. At the beaches, picnic facilities are provided at West Newport Park,
the Newport Pier area, 15th Street Beach, the Balboa Pier area, West Jetty Park, Las
Arenas Park, and Corona del Mar State Beach. Barbecues are provided at Channel
Place Park, Newport Island Park, Veteran's Memorial Park, Peninsula Park, and
Corona del Mar State Beach. In addition, approximately 70 fire rings are provided in
the Balboa Pier area and Corona del Mar State Beach.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -27
Beach restrooms are provided at
Newport Pier, 15th Street Beach, Balboa
Pier, Balboa Village, Las Arenas,
Corona del Mar State Beach, and Little
Corona Beach. On Balboa Island,
restrooms are provided at the ferry
landing, the community center, and at
the fire station on Marine Avenue.
F
71 < Restroom facilities are also provided at
most active coastal parks. Most beach
restroom facilities include showers.
#. Additionally, freestanding showers are
provided at Newport Pier and 15th Street
Restroom and shower facilities at Balboa Pier Beach. Restroom and /or shower
facilities are also provided at the County's Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, and
at the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park.
Services and Programs
Newport Beach is regarded as having one of the finest lifeguard services in the
world. In 2003, Newport Beach provides 16 fulltime lifeguards and 180 seasonal
lifeguards operating out of up to 40 lifeguard towers. The lifeguard fleet consists of
13 trucks and 3 rescue boats. Newport Beach lifeguards average 4,100 rescues,
83,000 preventative actions, 3,400 medical aid calls, and 570 lost person calls each
year.
The Junior Lifeguard Program continues
to be the most popular program during the
summer months, drawing about 1,200
participants each year. It has provided
invaluable training in water safety
practices and rescue techniques to over
20,000 youths since its inception in 1983,
and is a prime source for identifying future
lifeguards.
Newport Beach offers "beach camps" for
children in the summer months, allowing
children from all communities to enjoy a
week at the beach. Also countless day Junior Lifeguard training
camps visit the beaches for their field trips. Newport Beach also provides instruction
in a number of coastal recreation activities, including volleyball, surfing, and sailing.
In 2003, Newport Beach has a fleet of 14 Sabots and 3 Lidos, which are used to
teach over 200 children a year to sail. Newport Beach also conducts volleyball and
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -28
surfing tournaments.
Educational and Interpretative Facilities
The City, County, and private organizations provide several coastal - related
educational and interpretative facilities and programs.
Located in the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, the Muth Interpretative Center
is a 10,000 square foot educational facility, which provides exhibits and programs on
the ecology of the Upper Newport Bay. The Back Bay Science Center planned for
Shellmaker Island will include exhibits for water quality education and research
programs and ecological interpretive stations.
Located on a replica of a Delta paddlewheeler, the Newport Harbor Nautical
Museum Marine provides exhibits and programs on the nautical heritage of Newport
Harbor, Southern California and the Pacific Region.
Tide pool excursion at Little Corona
The Little Corona tide pools in the
Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area
receives thousands of visitors each year.
The Little Corona tide pools are managed
by the Newport Beach's Tidepool Ranger
program. Tidepool Rangers are trained
volunteers who educate and interact with
visitors to the tide pools. Tidepool
Rangers inform visitors of the rules and
regulations of the Marine Conservation
Area and protect tide pool resources.
The great number and variety of support facilities and services reflects Newport
Beach's commitment to protecting and enhancing public coastal access and
recreational opportunities. However, changes in demographics and recreational
interests have and will continue to alter the public's demand for support facilities and
services. Therefore, it is important that Newport Beach continue to have the ability to
respond to these changes while continuing to provide comparable facilities and
levels of service.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -29
Policies:
3.2.2 -1. Continue to protect public coastal access recreational opportunities
through the provision of adequate support facilities and services.
3.2.2 -2. Distribute support facilities and services in coastal areas to avoid
overcrowding and overuse by the public.
3.2.2 -3. Maintain the ability to distribute, remove and relocate support facilities
and services in coastal areas in response to changes in demographics
and recreational interests while continuing to provide comparable
facilities and levels of service.
3.2.2-4. Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas to
minimize parking use conflicts between commercial uses, residential
uses, and coastal zone visitors during peak summer months.
3.2.2 -5. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, Orange
County, and private organizations to protect, expand and enhance
support facilities and services at County and State beaches and
parks.
3.2.2 -6. As part of a uniform coastal access signing program, provide
information to direct the public to parking areas, restrooms, and other
support facilities.
Newport Pier Park
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -30
3.2.3 Access for Persons with Disabilities
People with disabilities that limit their mobility require special improvements in order
to be afforded access to coastal resources. Newport Beach is working to ensure that
persons with disabilities have access to coastal areas through the retrofitting of
existing public facilities or the construction of new facilities.
West Newport/Balboa Peninsula. With relatively level
terrain, West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula
provide a good point of coastal access for people with
disabilities. Parking spaces for the disabled are
provided at West Newport Park, the Newport Pier,
and the Balboa Pier. Accessible restrooms are also
provided at these locations. The Oceanfront
Boardwalk provides a smooth level pathway along
the beach for almost the entire length of the
peninsula. Newport Pier and Balboa Pier are also
accessible and have smooth concrete decks.
Hard surface pathways are provided at 11th Street,
MM 12th Street, Orange Street, and Island Avenue. These pathways extend oceanward to allow a view of
the surfline by persons in wheelchairs. Sidewalks Island Avenue disabled access
along the perimeter of parking lots at Newport Pier
and Balboa Pier and at the Newport Elementary School playground also provide
access near the surfline. Newport Beach also provides beach wheelchairs at the
lifeguard headquarters at Newport Pier.
Upper Newport Bay. Castaways Park is accessible, with parking spaces and
restrooms for the disabled provided at Bob Henry Park. Castaways Park has trails
and overlooks that provide panoramic views of the Newport Bay and the Pacific
Ocean. Parking spaces for the disabled are provided at the Newport Aquatic Center.
The Newport Aquatics Center provides recreation and launching facilities.
At the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, parking spaces and restrooms for the
disabled are provided at the Muth Interpretative Center. The Muth Interpretative
Center also hosts many wheelchair - accessible programs, including walks with local
naturalists and campfire events for families.
The Newport Dunes Aquatic Park also provides access to the Upper Newport Bay.
Parking spaces and restrooms for the disabled are provided and all buildings and
boardwalks are accessible.
The Upper Newport Bay is also accessible via Back Bay Drive, which provides
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -31
access to and along the easterly side of the bay. Parking spaces and restrooms
for the disabled are provided at the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park.
Balboa Island. Public parking is limited to on- street spaces. The Bay Front
Boardwalk is accessible most of the way around the island; however, a low sea
wall separates the walkway from the beaches. Accessible public restrooms are
provided at the Balboa Island Fire Station on Marine Avenue and the ferry landing.
Corona del Mar. Parking spaces for
the disabled are provided at Corona
del Mar State Beach parking lot. A
paved pathway is provided on top of
the East Jetty and allows views of
the harbor entrance and the ocean.
Both restroom buildings are
accessible. A beach wheelchair is
also provided at the lifeguard
facility.
Lookout Point and Inspiration Point Inspiration Point
view parks are also accessible and
provide spectacular views of the harbor entrance and Pacific Ocean.
Policies:
3.2.3 -1. Ensure that planned public facilities include provisions for adequate
access for the persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are
appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act in a manner consistent with the
protection of coastal resources.
3.2.3 -2. Continue to provide beach wheelchairs commensurate with demand.
3.2.3 -3. Design guardrails on piers, trails, and public viewing areas to take into
consideration the views at the eye level of persons in wheelchairs.
3.2.3 -4. Encourage the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State
Department of Fish and Game, and Orange County to provide
accessible facilities at County and State beaches and parks.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -32
3.3 Vessel Launching, Berthing, and Storage
Newport Harbor is the largest small craft harbor in the United States with over 9,000
boats at 2,119 commercial slips and side ties, 1,221 bay moorings, and 1,230 piers.
Newport Beach recognizes the importance of protecting and enhancing services and
facilities that are essential to a working harbor.
3.3.1 Vessel Launching
Vessel launching refers to areas or facilities where
vessels may be placed into and retrieved from the
water. This could be as simple as hand - carried
boat launching at a beach, or involve structures,
such as ramps and docks, or equipment such as
cranes, lifts, and hoists.
Newport Harbor provides a variety of locations and water, am vftin Lower Newport eay and
facilities for vessel launching. public trailer vmthinthaupperNewpori ' Bay, exd6Waor
g p the upper Newport Bay Marne Park
launching facility with 7 lanes is located at the
Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. Hand carried boat
launching is permitted at Newport Aquatic Center at North Star Beach, the Orange
County Harbor Patrol facility, and at 21 street end beaches on the Balboa Peninsula
and 22 street end beaches on Balboa Island.
Vessel launching facilities are provided at the Orange Coast College David A. Grant
Collegiate Rowing Center and the Boy Scout Sea Base in association with their
programs. Private vessel launching sites are also provided at commercial marinas
and boat yards. Yacht clubs and boating associations also provide vessel launch
sites for their members.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -33
Policies:
3.3.1 -1. Protect, and where
feasible, expand and
enhance vessel -
launching facilities in
Newport Harbor.
3.3.1 -2.
Protect,
and where
feasible,
expand and
enhance
low -cost public
ffid
launching
facilities, such
as trailer
launch ramps,
boat hoists, commercial 19'^ Street public dock
landing
facilities, and
organized
recreational boating launch facilities.
3.3.1 -3. Develop and implement a signage program to assist boat
owners/operators and the public to locate public launching facilities.
3.3.2 Berthing and Storage
Berthing refers to areas or facilities intended for the storage of a vessel in water.
These can involve anchorage and mooring areas, marinas, or individual slips. In
addition to the simple docking or mooring of vessels by their owners, berthing can
also be associated with boat rentals, vessels used in the charter boat industry,
brokered vessels stored for sale, yacht and sailing clubs, and vessels staged for
entry into upland shipyards.
Offshore moorings
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -34
Newport Beach provides over 1,200 bay moorings in the harbor. Approximately 450
are onshore moorings (moorings linked to the beach) and 750 are offshore moorings
(moorings anchored into the Harbor floor). The County Harbor Department provides
a guest mooring area offshore of the Harbor Patrol facility.
Anchorages are water areas outside of navigation channels designated for the
temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle. A free public
anchorage area is provided off of Lido Isle.
Newport Harbor has 16 marinas providing over 2,100 slips. The 172 -slip Balboa
Yacht Basin is city -owned and operated. Guest slips are provided at the Orange
County Harbor Patrol facility and at several commercial marinas.
Newport Beach also provides 5 public docks on the Balboa Peninsula and 5 public
docks on Balboa Island for loading and unloading passengers, supplies, and boating
gear and for similar purposes. A guest dock is also planned for the Rhine Wharf.
A large number of vessels are berthed at piers. Most of Newport Harbor's over
1,200 piers are connected to residential properties. Commercial piers are used
primarily to berth charter, entertainment, and excursion vessels and vessels for sale
or rent.
The Rhine Channel
Policies:
Dry storage of vessels is on -land
storage of vessels including vessels
normally stored in open or enclosed rack
structures, on trailers, on cradles, on
boat stands, or by other means.
Commercial dry storage facilities are
provided at the Newport Dunes Aquatic
Park and at some boat yards. Some
yacht clubs, boating associations, and
community associations provide dry
storage for their members.
3.3.2 -1. Provide a variety of berthing opportunities reflecting State and regional
demand for slip size and affordability throughout Newport Harbor.
3.3.2 -2. Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand marinas and dry
boat storage facilities.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -35
3.3.2 -3. Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an
important source of low -cost public access to the water and harbor.
3.3.2 -4. Provide anchorages in designated areas, which minimize interference
with navigation and where shore access and support facilities are
available.
3.3.2 -5. Continue to enforce the
ordinances that require
moored and docked
vessels to be seaworthy
and navigable and thereby
preserve the positive image
of the harbor and promote
public use of the water.
3.3.2 -6. Protect, and where
feasible, enhance and
expand guest docks at
public facilities, yacht clubs
and at privately owned- it' Street boat launch and onshore moorings
marinas, restaurants and
other appropriate locations.
3.3.2 -7. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities and
services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking
facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out
stations and other features, through City, County, and private means.
3.3.3 Harbor Support Facilities
Harbor support facilities are uses, equipment, and vessels that provide repair,
maintenance, new construction, parts and supplies, fueling, waste removal, cleaning,
and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting the harbor. Harbor support
facilities are considered essential to maintaining a working harbor.
Increased environmental regulation and real estate price inflation in coastal
communities have impacted a number of harbor support businesses. Those
businesses that do not have to be on the water have moved to inland locations.
Those that are more water dependent have been involved in land use conflicts with
residential and other land uses. Newport Beach has used land use controls as the
primary method to provide for the continuation of harbor support uses and minimize
land use conflicts. However, additional strategies and incentives may be necessary
to protect these facilities.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -36
Marine service station
Policies:
3.3.3 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities necessary
to support vessels berthed or moored in the harbor, such as boat haul
out facilities.
3.3.3 -2. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance existing harbor
support uses serving the needs of existing waterfront uses,
recreational boaters, the boating community, and visiting vessels.
3.3.3 -3. In considering the essential nature of land uses that support the
harbor, consider whether or not such support uses can be relocated to
inland locations and /or if technological advances will eliminate the
need such support uses in the foreseeable future.
3.3.34. Support private sector uses, such as vessel assistance, that provide
emergency, environmental enhancement and other services that are
not provided by the public sector and that are essential to the operation
of a working harbor.
3.3.3 -5. Develop strategies to preserve uses that provide essential support for
the vessels berthed or moored in the Harbor.
3.3.3 -6. Develop and implement a signing program to assist owners /operators
of visiting vessels to locate harbor support facilities.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3 -37
i
i
I
/
/
/ I
/ I
I
• . 1.
•I
t
H j1
1
�h
.•
, .A
`• !
City of Newport Beach, California (West Newport Area)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
M I.IJ.CP05AcrossRacMpImxd
A 01
• ,
�f
3 -38
McPeO� M r
NO81H
OMIe
July / 2009
Coastal Access
'
and Recreation:
Mao 3 -1
(M., 1 013)
l
LEGEND
ra
Public Beach Location
A
Public Beach Access Location
Potential Access Point
-
Coastal Zone Boundary
ti
Lateral Access
INO
Potential Lateral Access
ti
Vertical Access
Blufftop Access
Potential Blufflop Access
w
City Boundary
Proposed Park
K
Public Beach or Park
McPeO� M r
NO81H
OMIe
July / 2009
Syr .
City of Newport Beach, California (Upper Newport Bay)
Local Coastal Program
ia' Coastal Land Use Plan
� Y
UPPER
NEWPORT
BAY
-IPA
3 -39
nicnp CR 6 E A
..........
Y
L,✓
�II
l
Coastal Access
and Recreation:
Map 3 -1
(Map 2 01 ])
OMw
December /2005
LEGEND
M
Public Beach Location
A
Public Beach Access Location
Potential Access Point
Coastal Zone Boundary
ti
Lateral Access
'S.
Potental Lateral Access
`V
Vertical Access
Blufftop Access
Potential Blufftop Access
City Boundary
• !-
Proposed Park
K
Public Beach or Park
OMw
December /2005
)§&/
kW I�
3]
0
°)\)�)) \ \}}
�j\}0Ammm0
- 4 < / /// /2■
>. . §: Nlr4 4 � A
m
d
3
i
|\ �
� \E cm
\ \\
_�;,
� }] /\
� >�)
I . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WFW
PACIFIC
L
'HARI
is,
8AC80A
OCEAN
Vessel Launching,
Berthing and Storage
Map 3-4
LEGEND
Public Launch Site
Public Pumpout Site
Public Dock & View Point,
Coastal Zone Boundary
City Boundary
Mooring Sites
OAnchorage
Sites
City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area)
N4 RTH
Local Coastal Program ft
Coastal Land Use Plan
3-43
4.0 Coastal Resource Protection
4.1 Biological Resources
4.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
The Coastal Act criteria for determining whether an area qualifies as an ESHA are
based upon ecological importance, including the rarity or function of the habitat,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -1
and the habitat's sensitivity. Rarity relates to either the natural limited occurrence
of the habitat in the region or of the diminishment of what was an extensive habitat
due to cumulative losses. Function relates to the importance of the habitat to the
ecosystem, such as functioning as a migration corridor for wildlife. Sensitivity
relates to the habitats tolerance to disturbance or degradation.
The following terrestrial (non- marine) natural communities are known to occur
within the coastal zone in Newport Beach and the City's sphere of influence:
• Dune habitats, including southern coastal foredunes and southern dune
scrub.
• Scrub habitats, including southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent
scrub, and Diegan coastal sage scrub.
• Chaparral habitats, including southern mixed chaparral and southern
maritime chaparral.
■ Riparian habitats, including southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak
riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern arroyo
willow forest, southern black willow forest, and southern sycamore alder
riparian woodland.
• Marsh habitats, including coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh,
and southern coastal salt marsh.
• Southern coastal needlegrass grassland.
• Southern hardpan vernal pools.
• Freshwater seeps.
• Alkali meadows.
The California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) "List of California
Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity
Database" (CNDDB) provides an inventory of California's natural communities and
identifies those that are considered rare because of their highly limited distribution.
These rare communities may or may not contain individual species that are rare,
threatened, or endangered.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -2
In determining whether a habitat area meets the statutory definition of ESHA
contained in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act and should be designated as an
ESHA, the following attributes need to taken into consideration:
• The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by
the California Department of Fish and Game.
• The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated
as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law.
• The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not
listed under State or Federal law, but for which there is other compelling
evidence of rarity, such as designation as a 1B or 2 species by the
California Native Plant Society.
• The presence of coastal streams.
■ The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas.
Several of the natural communities that occur in Newport Beach are designated
rare by the CDFG and are easily disturbed or degraded by human activity and
therefore are presumed to meet the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act.
These include southern dune scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime
succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, southern willow scrub, southern
cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern arroyo willow forest, southern black
willow forest, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, and southern coastal
purple needlegrass grassland.
Although not all riparian habitat types are rare throughout the state, in southern
California over 90% of the original riparian habitats had been lost to development
by 1989. All remaining native riparian habitats in southern California, including
southern coast live oak riparian forest, meet the definition of ESHA both because
of their rarity and because of their important roles in the ecosystem. For example,
many species of birds nest and roost in riparian habitat but forage in adjacent
coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
Another important habitat within the City of Newport Beach is coastal sage scrub
(CSS). Although CSS has suffered enormous losses in California (estimates are
as high as 85 %), there are still thousands of acres in existence and this
community type is no longer listed as rare by CDFG. Nevertheless, where CSS
occurs adjacent to coastal salt marsh or other wetlands, or where it is documented
to support or known to have the potential to support rare species such as the
coastal California gnatcatcher, it meets the definition of ESHA because of its
especially valuable role in the ecosystem. CSS is important transitional or "edge"
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -3
habitat adjacent to saltmarsh, providing important functions such as supporting
pollinators for wetland plants and essential habitat for edge- dependent animals
like several species of butterflies that nectar on upland plants but whose
caterpillars require wetland vegetation. CSS also provides essential nesting and
foraging habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a rare species designated
threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Wetland habitats with the City of Newport Beach that may meet the definition of
ESHA include coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, southern coastal
salt marsh, southern hardpan vernal pools, freshwater seeps, and alkali meadows.
Areas within the City of Newport Beach that are dominated by one of the habitats
discussed above are presumed to be ESHA, unless there are strong site - specific
reasons to rebut that presumption. Factors that should be considered when
making site - specific assessments include:
• Patch size and connectivity. Very small patches of habitat that are
effectively isolated from other natural areas may lose many of their natural
ecological functions. Functional patch size is dependent upon both the
ecological needs of the species of importance supported by the habitat and
the spatial scale of the habitat. For example, what is isolated for a small
mammal may not be for a bird and what is small for a coyote may not be for
some insects.
• Dominance by invasive, non - native species. Non- native species often
provide poorer habitat for wildlife than native vegetation and proliferation of
exotic plant species alters ecosystem processes and may threaten certain
native species with extirpation. However, there are probably no habitats in
southern California that have not been invaded by exotic species, and the
remaining stands of native grassland are almost always dominated by non-
native annual species. Only where exotic species are so overwhelmingly
dominant that the native community can no longer perform its functions in
the ecosystem should the presence of exotic species rebut the presumption
of ESHA.
• Disturbance and proximity to development. Disturbance is the negative
effect of human activities such as dumping, vegetation removal,
development, pollution, etc. Habitat areas bordering development may be
subject to impacts from negative edge effects, such as lighting, non - native
invasive plant species, domestic animals, and human activity. The negative
effects of disturbance are strongest immediately adjacent to development
and decline with distance from the edge. However, where very small
patches of habitat are effectively surrounded by development, these
impacts may be severe. In general, disturbance by itself is not enough to
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-4
rebut the finding of ESHA. Disturbance that is clearly reversible (e.g.,
presence of trash or illegal dumping) is not determinative.
■ Fragmentation and isolation. Where there are large areas of more -or -less
continuous development, native communities may be reduced to small
islands of habitat that are distant from other natural habitats. This
fragmentation and isolation can create barriers to migration, reduce wildlife
food and water resources and generally compress territory size to reduce
existing wildlife populations to non - viability. The smaller a particular habitat
patch is, the greater the proportion of its area that experiences negative
edge effects.
Where the habitats discussed above occur in the City of Newport Beach the
presumption is that they are ESHA and the burden of proof is on the property
owner or project proponent to demonstrate that that presumption is rebutted by
site - specific evidence. However, if quantitative data gathered by a qualified
biologist demonstrates that a habitat area is degraded beyond the point of
restoration, or that it is not rare and is so small and isolated that it no longer has
habitat value or a special nature or role in the ecosystem, the habitat area does
not meet the statutory definition of ESHA contained in Section 30107.5 of the
Coastal Act. Therefore, such habitat areas do not warrant the special land use
and development restrictions established for ESHA in this Coastal Land Use Plan.
Policies:
Define any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are
either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or
role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or
degraded by human activities and developments as an
environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). Using a site - specific
survey and analysis by a qualified biologist, evaluate the following
attributes when determining whether a habitat area meets the
definition of an ESHA:
A. The presence of natural communities that have been
identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and
Game.
B. The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species
designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or
Federal law.
C. The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species
that are not listed under State or Federal law, but for which
there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -5
designation as a 1B or 2 species by the California Native
Plant Society.
D. The presence of coastal streams.
E. The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other
natural areas.
Attributes to be evaluated when determining a habitat's
integrity /connectivity include the habitat's patch size and
connectivity, dominance by invasive /non- native species, the level of
disturbance, the proximity to development, and the level of
fragmentation and isolation.
Existing developed areas and existing fuel modification areas
required by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department or the
Orange County Fire Authority for existing, legal structures do not
meet the definition of ESHA.
4.1.1 -2. Require a site - specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified
biologist as a filing requirement for coastal development permit
applications where development would occur within or adjacent to
areas identified as a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats or
natural communities listed in Section 4.1.1 that possess any of the
attributes listed in Policy 4.1.1 -1. The ESA's depicted on Map 4 -1
shall represent a preliminary mapping of areas containing potential
ESHA.
4.1.1 -3. Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in
ESHA.
4.1.1 -4. Protect ESHAs against any significant disruption of habitat values.
4.1.1 -6. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to preclude new
development within and minimize impacts to ESHAs.
4.1.1 -6. Require development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas to be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would
significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the
continuance of those habitat areas.
4.1.1 -7. Limit uses within ESHAs to only those uses that are dependent on
such resources.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -6
4.1.1 -8. Limited public access improvements and minor educational,
interpretative and research activities and development may be
considered resource dependent uses. Measures, including, but not
limited to, trail creation, signage, placement of boardwalks, and
fencing, shall be implemented as necessary to protect ESHA. .
Where feasible, confine development adjacent to ESHAs to low
impact land uses, such as open space and passive recreation.
4.1.1 -10. Require buffer areas of sufficient size to ensure the biological
integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect.
Terrestrial ESHA shall have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet
wherever possible. Smaller ESHA buffers may be allowed only
where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 50 -foot wide buffer is not
possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed
narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity
of the ESHA given the site - specific characteristics of the resource
and of the type and intensity of disturbance.
4.1.1 -11. Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively
native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provide
distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion.
4.1.1 -12. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant
species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas.
4.1.1 -13. Shield and direct exterior lighting away from ESHAs to minimize
impacts to wildlife.
4.1.1 -14. Require mitigation in the form of habitat creation or substantial
restoration for allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive
resources that cannot be avoided through the implementation of
siting and design alternatives. Priority shall be given to on -site
mitigation. Off -site mitigation measures shall only be approved when
it is not feasible to fully mitigate impacts on -site. Mitigation shall not
substitute for implementation of the project alternative that would
avoid impacts to ESHA.
4.1.1 -15. Apply the following mitigation ratios for allowable impacts to upland
vegetation: 2:1 for coastal sage scrub; 3:1 for coastal sage scrub that
is occupied by California gnatcatchers or significant populations of
other rare species; 3:1 for rare community types such as southern
maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub; native grassland and
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -7
1:1 for southern mixed chaparral. The ratios represent the acreage
of the area to be restored /created to the acreage impacted.
4.1.1 -16. For allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources,
require monitoring of mitigation measures for a period of sufficient
time to determine if mitigation objectives and performance standards
are being met. Mid - course corrections shall be implemented if
necessary to meet the objectives or performance standards.
Require the submittal of monitoring reports during the monitoring
period that document the success or failure of the mitigation. To
help insure that the mitigation project is self- sustaining, final
monitoring for all mitigation projects shall take place after at least
three years with no remediation or maintenance activities other than
weeding. If performance standards are not met by the end of the
prescribed monitoring period, the monitoring period shall be
extended or the applicant shall submit an amendment application
proposing alternative mitigation measures and implement the
approved changes. Unless it is determined by the City that a
differing mitigation monitoring schedule is appropriate, it is generally
anticipated that monitoring shall occur for a period of not less than
five years.
4.1.1 -17. In conjunction with new development, require that all preserved
ESHA, buffers, and all mitigation areas, onsite and offsite, be
conserved /dedicated (e.g. open space direct dedication, offer to
dedicate (OTD), conservation easement, deed restriction) in such a
manner as to ensure that the land is conserved in perpetuity. A
management plan and funding shall be required to ensure
appropriate management of the habitat area in perpetuity.
4.1.1 -18. Require all direct open space dedications or OTDs to be made to a
public agency or other appropriate entity that will manage the open
space area on behalf of the public.
4.1.1 -19. Encourage the acceptance of direct open space dedications or OTDs
to the public by the City, a public agency, a private association, or
other appropriate entity.
4.1.1 -20. Give consideration to applying the Open Space land use category to
lands with open space restrictions, dedications, or offers to dedicate.
4.1.1 -21. Dedicated open space areas, or areas where there are open space
offers to dedicate, open space easements, and /or open space deed
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -8
restrictions shall be protected consistent with the requirements of the
dedication, offer to dedicate, easement or deed restriction.
4.1.1 -22. The City shall maintain an inventory of open space dedications or
offers to dedicate to ensure such areas are known to the public and
are protected through the coastal development permit process.
4.1.2 Marine Resources
Marine Habitats
Newport Beach and surrounding
ocean waters have very diverse
marine habitats. These include the
marshes and wetlands in Upper
Newport Bay, the developed
channels, beaches, and hard
structures (bulkheads, seawalls,
docks, pilings, and jetties) of Lower
Newport Bay, and the intertidal and
subtidal landforms (sandy beaches,
rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and
subtidal reefs) along the coast of
Newport Beach. Section 30230 of
Newport Beach Manne ConseNation Area the Coastal Act requires that
marine resources be maintained,
enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Protection of marine habitats is required
not only for their biological significance, but also for their commercial, recreational,
scientific, and educational value.
Open estuary and salt marsh habitats occur in the Upper Newport Bay and the
Semeniuk Slough. The Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal wetlands
remaining in southern California and is an ecological resource of national
significance. The Semeniuk Slough is a relatively large, uninterrupted open
estuary/coastal salt marsh that provide wildlife with a relatively large, diverse area
for foraging, shelter, and movement. The habitats of the Semeniuk Slough and
the Upper Newport Bay are discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental
Study Areas).
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine plant that grows in Newport Harbor at
depths below the low tide line and into the navigational channels. This true marine
grass forms meadows and attracts many invertebrates and fishes that use the
vegetation as foraging and nursery habitat. Eelgrass is discussed in more detail in
Section 4.1.4 (Eelgrass Meadows) and Section 4.2.5 (Eelgrass Protection and
Restoration).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -9
The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is located along the Corona del
Mar shoreline and extends 200 feet offshore. Numerous types of invertebrates,
algae, seagrass, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the refuge, and
marine mammals occasionally pass through. The Newport Beach Marine
Conservation Area is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area
11).
The Newport Submarine Canyon is
a unique coastal feature that begins
immediately seaward of the Newport i�a�_. 35 M
M
Pier at a depth of 8 meters (25 feet)
Bottom depths rapidly increase to .j
nearly 30 meters (100 feet) within _
400 meters (1,200 feet) from shore
and 100 meters (300 feet) deep
within 1,300 meters (3,900 feet) from
shore. This geological feature is
believed to have been formed by the
ancestral Santa Ana River, and it is''i
the exit pathway for southward -
moving sands transported through Representation of the Newport Submarine Canyon
littoral drift currents at the end of the San Pedro Littoral Cell. In an effort to reduce
the sand loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed six groins along
West Newport to hold the sand. The groins have been partially successful.
Biologically, the submarine canyon is unique because it acts as a pathway for
cold, nutrient -rich waters that upwell from deeper offshore waters to the shallower
nearshore shelf. Additionally, the canyon acts as a pathway through which deeper
water species of fish, squid, shark, and jellyfish, sometimes can be found close to
shore. The canyon is also an important fishing zone for the Dory Fishing Fleet.
Sensitive Marine Species
Several species of marine mammals
frequent the nearshore waters along
the Newport Beach coastline. All
marine mammals are protected by
the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Several whales are federally listed
endangered species: The marine
mammals that have the greatest
potential to occur locally are
California sea lion (Zalophus
califomicus), harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), California gray whale
Sea lion on the West Jetty
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -10
(Eschrichthius robustus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), common dolphin (Delphinus
delphis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), Pacific white sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and Dall's porpoise (Phocenoides daib). The most
common, the California gray whale, was delisted as an endangered species in
1994 because of significant increases in its population numbers in recent years.
California gray whales are common between December and April, as they migrate
between their summer feeding grounds in the Bering Sea and their Baja California
calving lagoons. Individuals sometimes enter the Newport Harbor Entrance
Channel. Pods of bottlenose dolphin are occasionally observed swimming in the
surf zone or immediately outside the surf zone along the Newport coastline.
California sea lions are frequently observed within Newport Harbor, particularly in
the vicinity of the sports fishing boats near the Balboa Pavilion.
Despite the substantial declines in the distribution of giant kelp cover along the
shoreline between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, a stand of giant kelp has
maintained itself within Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, along the west jetty.
The giant kelp bed is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area
13).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -11
Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) is a sensitive marine resource that occurs in rocky
shoreline and rocky subtidal habitats at depths to approximately —20 feet MLLW.
Its sensitivity is related to its use by invertebrates and fishes as nursery habitat
and its susceptibility to long -term damage because it is a very slow growing
species. Revegetation occurs naturally through seeding and eventually spreading
of roots and rhizomes over surfaces of rocks. Surfgrass is located within the
Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area, along the outer fringes of the intertidal
reefs and the tops of shallow subtidal reefs.
California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) are fish that are associated with many
beaches in southern California. Grunion lay their eggs in the wet beach sands
during the highest spring tides between late February or early March, to as late as
early September. Historically, these grunion 'runs" have occurred on west - facing
beaches upcoast of Newport Pier, where the beach slopes tend to be more
gradual rather than south facing beaches downcoast of Newport Pier. However,
there has been no recent grunion activity observed on these beaches. Grunion
run activity has also occurred on Corona del Mar State Beach and Rocky Point
Beach, in the Harbor Entrance mouth.
Although California halibut (Paralichthys califomicus) does not have a formal
special species status, the California halibut 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. California halibut spawn at
sea and the larval stages are planktonic. After several months, the larval fish
settle to the bottom, and migrate into shallow coastal waters, including Newport
Bay. Halibut are distributed throughout the waters of Lower and Upper Newport
Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean
entrance and offshore. Young -Of- The -Year (YOTY) prefer shallow waters
between about —0.45 meter (1.5 feet) and —1.0 meter (3.5 feet) Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW), whereas juveniles prefer deeper channel bottoms to a maximum
depth of approximately 4.5 meters (15 feet) MLLW. After spending nearly nine
months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment.
Invasive Marine Species
Caulerpa taxitolia
Caulerpa taxifolia is an extremely harmful,
invasive species that has recently been
introduced into southern California waters. It
has been located within Huntington Harbour
and in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in northern
San Diego County. This species has a
characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy
fern -like fronds (branches), a nd below -
ground root system. Caulerpa algae can be
extremely harmful to marine ecosystems
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -12
because it invades and out - competes native habitats by forming a dense blanket
of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons
as well as in deeper ocean waters, and can grow rapidly and up to 9 feet in length.
However, its usual form observed so far is much smaller in length.
The ecological consequences of the spread of this invasive algae can be
extremely serious and can result in a significant loss of plant and animal
productivity. Therefore, the spread of this species is being closely monitored and
areas that have become infested are being treated chemically to eradicate any
growth. The management, control, and eradication of this species is the
responsibility of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT).
Newport Bay is not currently known to be infested by this species, however,
continued surveillance for undetected or new infestations is a high priority to the
SCCAT. Project site surveys for the presence of Caulerpa taxifolia are required
by NOAA and CDFG prior to bottom- disturbing projects such as dredging, dock
replacement, bulkhead repair.
Assembly Bill 1334 (Chapter 338, Statutes of 2001) prohibits the sale, possession,
and transport of Caulerpa taxifolia throughout California. The Bill also bans
species of Caulerpa that look similar to C. taxifolia and are believed to have the
capability to become invasive. The importation of the Mediterranean strain of
Caulerpa taxifolia into the United States and interstate trade, including via the
Internet, is also a federal offense under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1999
and the Plant Protection Act of 2000.
Water Quality
Runoff from the surrounding watershed threatens the biological diversity and
functionality of Newport Bay and the surrounding coastal waters. This runoff
includes various pollutants, such as fecal material from pets, oil and grease,
fertilizers, and other urban -based pollutants. In addition, increased sediment loads
decrease the extent of tidal inundation, diminish water quality, degrade habitat for
endangered species, migratory water birds, and marine and estuarine fishes, and
contribute to the decline of kelp forests. Water quality and sedimentation issues
are discussed further in Section 4.2 (Wetlands and Deepwater Areas) and Section
4.3 (Water Quality).
Policies:
4.1.2 -1. Maintain, enhance, and, where feasible, restore marine resources.
4.1.2 -2. Provide special protection to marine resource areas and species of
special biological or economic significance.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -13
4.1.2 -3. Require that uses of the marine environment be carried out in a
manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters
and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine
organisms adequate for long -term commercial, recreational,
scientific, and educational purposes.
4.1.2 -4. Continue to cooperate with the state and federal resource protection
agencies and private organizations to protect marine resources.
4.1.2 -5. Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City
approval of projects in the Newport Bay and immediately notify the
SCCAT when found.
Rocky intertidal reefs at Little Corona
4.1.3 Environmental Study Areas
Newport Beach has several relatively large, undeveloped areas that contain
natural habitats and may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources.
These areas are designated as environmental study areas to define them
geographically, provide an overview of known and potential biological resources,
identify potential threats to those resources, and propose potential mitigation
measures.
The following areas are designated as environmental study areas:
1. Semeniuk Slough (Santa Ana River Marsh)
2. North Star Beach
3. West Bay
4. Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and DeAnzalBayside Marsh Peninsula
5. San Diego Creek
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -14
6. Eastbluff Remnant
7. Mouth of Big Canyon
8. Newporter North
9. Buck Gully
10. Morning Canyon
11. Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area
12. Castaways
13. Kelp Beds in Newport Harbor Entrance Channel
Most of these study areas are protected as parks, conservation areas, nature
preserves, and other open space areas. Nevertheless, the natural habitats in
each of these study areas are subjected to various potential impacts from the
surrounding urban environment. Potential adverse impacts and mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts are identified in the narratives below and
summarized in Table 4.1 -1 (Environmental Study Area Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures).
Portions of the environmental study areas listed above are known to contain
habitat that constitutes Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). As such,
they will be subject to more stringent development controls and resource
protection measures. Within these study areas, those natural
communities /habitats identified in Section 4.1.1 are presumed to be ESHA, unless
there is compelling site - specific evidence to the contrary. As is evident from the
descriptions provided below, large portions of these environmental study areas
support one or more community types that meet the definition of ESHA.
Eelgrass meadows within Newport Bay and coastal foredunes on the Balboa
Peninsula are not included in the list of environmental study areas since their
locations shift due to fluctuations in growing conditions. Eelgrass meadows and
coastal foredune habitats are discussed in Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.1.5,
respectively.
Study Area No. 1: Semeniuk Slough
Semeniuk Slough is a remnant channel of
the Santa Ana River from the time when the
river emptied into Newport Bay; it forms a
loop around the Newport Shores residential
area in West Newport. The 103 -acre
Semeniuk Slough Environmental Study Area
(ESA) includes the main slough channel
immediately north of Newport Shores and
the coastal salt marsh habitat to the north,
including a narrow sliver of salt marsh
habitat in the far north of the ESA, flanked
by the Santa Ana River on the west and
Semeniuk Slough
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -15
Banning Ranch on the east. Several smaller interconnected channels and
inundated depressions are located throughout the salt marsh habitat.
Semeniuk Slough is exposed to limited tidal influence through a tidal culvert
connected between the Santa Ana River and the slough. The site contains a
healthy stand of sensitive coastal salt water marshhabitat . The state endangered
Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) breeds in
nearby wetland habitats including Upper Newport Bay and salt marsh in
Huntington Beach but not in Semeniuk Slough. However, small numbers of
Belding's savannah sparrows forage in Semeniuk Slough, especially during the
winter when breeding birds disperse. A Belding's savannah sparrow was
observed within the Semeniuk Slough site on July 10, 2002. The state and federal
endangered California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni), which has a large
nesting colony on the Huntington Beach side of the Santa Ana River mouth,
forages occasionally in the slough channels. Western snowy plovers (federal
threatened) are observed occasionally in Semeniuk Slough. The California
brackish water snail (Tryonia imitator), a Federal Species of Concern, has been
collected in substantial numbers in the channels of Semeniuk Slough.
The Semeniuk Slough ESA is characterized by open estuarine, southern coastal
salt marsh, and ornamental plant communities. The S -curved channel, also
referred to as Oxbow Loop, is bordered to the north by southern coastal salt marsh
vegetation, which is dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) and salt grass.
Most of the natural areas occur to the west of the parcel. Sea fig has invaded
some of the upland portions of the parcel. Other ornamental plant species are
found along the margin of the Slough, primarily in the eastern portions of the
parcel and include myoporum (Myoporum sp.), acacia (Acacia sp.), Mexican fan
palm, pine (Pious sp.), and eucalyptus.
Many houses in the Newport Shores development bordering the slough have small
docks and patios that encroach into the slough. The proximity to the Newport
Shores residential development has introduced numerous ornamental and non-
native species to the eastern perimeter of the site, and also allows use of the
slough for recreational use. A few oil -well related structures are located in the
southern part of the ESA, immediately north of the main slough channel. The land
surrounding these structures has been cleared. Two roads bisect the study area -
one leading from the Santa Ana River levee to the Banning Ranch area, and the
other leading to the oil well structures.
Potential impacts to this area include water quality degradation, human activity,
encroachment, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -16
Study Area No. 2: North Star Beach
Located at White Cliffs Drive and
North Star Lane, North Star Beach is
bordered by the main channel of
Upper Newport Bay to the east,
Galaxy Drive to the north, and
residential development to the south
and west of the site.
The 11.8 -acre North Star Beach ESA
supports a small riparian area �; x +
composed of southern willow scrub. k
Southern willow scrub is considered a
sensitive habitat, and is listed as rare Southern coastal bluff scrub habitat (in the background) at North
or threatened or is otherwise Star Beach
protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFG, or local
agencies. Southern willow scrub is utilized by many species of vertebrates,
including birds, amphibians, and mammals. Sensitive species, such as the least
Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, have the potential to occur within
this site.
The beach parcel located south of the Newport Aquatics Center (NAC) consists of
dredged sand material and supports predominately ruderal plant species including
cheeseweed (Malva pariflora), red - stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), sea
rocket, and black mustard (Brassica nigra). The bluff located to the west of the
beach and the NAC facilities, and east of the adjacent residential area supports
several non - native ornamental trees and shrubs including acacia, myoporum, and
pine. Several saltbush shrubs are located throughout the sandy beach and bluff
areas within this parcel. A small wetland supported by nuisance water runoff (from
the western bluffs and residential area) is located just north of the NAC facilities.
This area mainly supports willow (Sa /ix spp.), palm (Phoenix sp.), and sedge.
North of where the wetland reaches the bay, native saltwater marsh and southern
coastal bluff scrub habitat is found that lacks the exotic species present in the
southern portion of the study area.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion,
increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public
access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -17
Study Area No. 3: West Bay
i - w
The 84.4 -acre West Bay ESA is located
along Irvine Avenue from University
Drive south along the east side of
Galaxy Drive. It is bordered by the
Upper Newport Bay Marine Park to the
east, residential development to the
north and west, and the North Star
Beach ESA to the south.
This parcel consists of four
characteristic plant communities,
including Diegan coastal sage scrub,
Non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub habdat southern coastal bluff scrub, disturbed
at Upper Newport Bay Nature re Preserve Preserve
southern willow scrub, and non - native
grassland. Much of the non - native grassland was most likely remnant coastal
sage scrub habitat prior to being cleared. The Dieagan coastal sage scrub habitat
is located primarily near the bay, with a few stands that border Irvine Avenue, and
is primarily composed of California sagebrush, coyote brush, prickly pear
(Opunfia sp.), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. menziesh), and
lemonadeberry.
The southern section of the study area overlooking the bay supports southern
coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Plant species associated with this area include
saltbush, tree lupine (Lupines arborous), prickly pear, coyote brush, California
buckwheat, coastal goldenbush, and California bush sunflower. This area is
contiguous with the bluff habitat along North Star Beach.
A small drainage located near 23rd Street (the remnant of Indian Springs)
transports nuisance water runoff from the residential area located west of Irvine
Avenue, and crosses the southern portion of the West Bay ESA before reaching
the bay. This drainage supports a disturbed southern willow scrub plant
community dominated by willow, eucalyptus, and giant reed. Several coastal sage
scrub restoration areas, revegetated with young native shrubs, are located along
the gradual slopes located north of the drainage. Black mustard and wild oats
dominate the non - native grassland plant community, which is found throughout the
parcel and most often bordering Irvine Avenue.
This site is used as open space as well as for recreational opportunities and
includes the Muth Interpretive Center operated by the County of Orange. A paved
bike and pedestrian trail is located along the crest of the West Bay parcel. Several
dirt trails transect the north end of the parcel.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -18
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion,
increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public
access.
Study Area No. 4: Upper Newport Bay Marine Park/DeAnza Bayside Marsh
Peninsula
The Upper Newport Bay Marine Park is
located within the upper two- thirds of
Upper Newport Bay. The site is
bordered by Irvine Boulevard and
residential areas to north and west, the
lower reach of Upper Newport Bay to
the south, and San Diego Creek to the
east. The 787.6 -acre Upper Newport
Bay Marine Park extends from
Shellmaker Island to the Jamboree
Road Bridge. The DeAnza Bayside
Marsh Peninsula is located outside of
the Maine Park boundaries at the
southern -most section of Upper
Newport Bay, immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge.
quality salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, and subtidal habitats,
(Zostera marina).
southern coastal salt marsh habitat at Upper Newport Bay
It consists of high
including eelgrass
Upper Newport Bay, one of the largest coastal wetlands remaining in southern
California, is an ecological resource of national significance. Sensitive natural
habitats within Upper Newport Bay include estuarine marine open water, coastal
freshwater marsh, intertidal mudflat, salt panne, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and
southern coastal salt marsh. Salt marsh habitat within Upper Newport Bay
includes cordgrass- dominated low salt marsh, pickleweed- dominated mid salt
marsh, and high salt marsh.
This ESA supports several listed bird species and an endangered plant. The
resident population of the state and federal endangered light- footed clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris levipes) in Upper Newport Bay represents about 65 percent of
the California population of this species. Upper Newport Bay has consistently
supported the highest numbers of rails of any southern California wetland, and is
believed to be the only viable subpopulation remaining in the United States. The
highest number of breeding clapper rails during the 1990s in Upper Newport Bay
was 158 pairs in 1996. The 1999 census recorded 104 pairs. Low salt marsh
dominated by cordgrass is the species' preferred nesting habitat, but it has been
known to breed in brackish and even freshwater marsh. Clapper rails are found
throughout the Upper Bay, heavily utilizing cordgrass marsh for nesting at several
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -19
locations, including Shellmaker Island, Middle Island, Upper Island, and salt marsh
habitat above the Main Dike.
The state endangered Belding's
savannah sparrow is a year -round
resident and breeder in Upper Newport
Bay. Its preferred nesting habitat is
pickleweed- dominated mid salt marsh. In
1996, the population in Upper Newport
bay was 252 pairs.
The state and federal endangered
California least tern is a seasonal
resident in Upper Newport Bay from April
to early September. They nest on Least
De AnzaBayside Marsh Peninsula
Tern
Island, the smaller of two islands in
the uppermost
sedimentation basin. In
1999, 40 pairs of least terns nested on this
island. In
2000, 60 least tern pairs
nested in Upper Newport Bay
and fledged
12 young.
Skimmers and Forsters
terns nest on the second, and
larger island
(Skimmer
Island) in the uppermost
sedimentation basin.
The federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher nests in coastal sage scrub
along the margins of Upper Newport Bay. There are at least 10 pairs breeding in
upland habitat surrounding Upper Newport Bay.
Other listed bird species that occur in Upper Newport Bay on a seasonal basis but
do not breed there include the state and federal endangered California brown
pelican, the federal threatened western snowy plover, and the state endangered
American peregrine falcon.
The state and federal endangered plant salt marsh bird's beak occurs at several
sites in high salt marsh habitat in Upper Newport Bay. It is the only listed plant
species confirmed to occur in the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park.
In addition to these listed species, a number of bird species that are Federal
Species of Concern and /or State Species of Special Concern use the Upper
Newport Bay Marine Park. The California brackish water snail, a Federal Species
of Concern, is common around freshwater discharges to the Upper Bay.
Because of its diversity of habitats and its location on the Pacific Flyway, Upper
Newport Bay supports an impressive number and diversity of birds, particularly
during fall and winter when shorebirds and waterfowl arrive from their northern
breeding grounds. There are approximately 182 bird species that regularly occur
in Newport Bay over a calendar year. Only about 18 percent of these are year
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -20
round residents. The large number of non - resident bird species indicates Newport
Bay's value not only to the local resident bird community, but also to a large
number of migratory gulls, terns, raptors, shorebirds and waterfowl that are key
species in ecosystems in other areas of the continent.
At least 78 fish species have been identified in various studies of Upper Newport
Bay. Newport Bay is an important habitat for resident estuarine species, as well
as a spawning and nursery ground for a variety of marine species including
California halibut (Paralichthys califomicus), yellowfin croaker, white seabass
(Atractoscion nobilis) and barred sandbass.
The ecological diversity and functionality of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park
has been threatened by sedimentation from the surrounding watershed. The
primary source of freshwater and sediment loads to Upper Newport Bay is San
Diego Creek. Sediment from the San Diego Creek watershed has filled open
water areas within the Bay. This sedimentation has decreased the extent of tidal
inundation, diminished water quality, degraded habitat for endangered species,
migratory water birds, and marine and estuarine fishes. Heavy sedimentation
during the 1998 El Nino required dredging in 1998 and 1999. Recently, a long-
term management plan was developed to control sediment deposition in the Upper
Bay to preserve the health of Upper Newport Bay's habitats. That plan identified
basin configurations and depths to control sedimentation in the Upper Bay.
The slopes of the bluffs along Upper Newport Bay are unstable and have required
stabilization devices and bluff repairs. Irrigation practices on the tops of the bluffs
have contributed to both erosion and eutrophication problems in the Upper Bay.
Study Area No. 5: San Diego Creek
The 37.3 -acre San Diego Creek
ESA is bordered by Jamboree
Road to the west, Bayview Way
and a commercial automobile
dealership to the north, MacArthur
Boulevard to the east, and the
residential area adjacent to
University Drive on the south. The
San Diego Creek site is contiguous
with the Upper Newport Bay Marine
Park, and merges with the bay in
the vicinity of Jamboree Road.
This study area includes two main
parcels: the main channel of San
Diego Creek and an adjacent
saltwater marsh mitigation area
Main channel of San Diego Creek
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -21
located to the north.
The San Diego Creek study area is dominated by southern willow scrub and
southern coastal salt marsh communities. These habitats are considered
sensitive, and are listed as rare or threatened or are otherwise protected by the
USFWS, CDFG, or local agencies. Southern willow scrub is utilized by many
species of vertebrates including birds, amphibians, and mammals. Sensitive
species, such as the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, have
the potential to occur within this site. Southern coastal salt marsh also provides
habitat for many sensitive plants and animals, which have the potential to occur
within this site. The California brackish water snail, a Federal Species of Concern,
is common around freshwater discharges to the Upper Bay, including San Diego
Creek.
The marsh site is separated from the main channel by an earthen levee, but is
hydraulically recharged by San Diego Creek during high water events through an
existing culvert. The marsh site consists of two primary habitat types: southern
coastal salt marsh (aquatic) and southern willow scrub. The middle of the site is
inundated with low -to- moderate amounts of water, and is dominated by salt marsh
and emergent wetland vegetation including pickleweed, salt grass, and bulrush
(Scirpus sp.). Portions of this area have been revegetated with native plants. The
eastern portion of the site gives rise to southern willow scrub and primarily
consists of willow (Salix sp.), mule fat, and cattails. The upland areas of this site
support a mixture of habitat types and consist of shrub species, including
California bush sunflower, saltbush, and mule fat.
The main channel is characterized by southern willow scrub. This area is
dominated by willow and mule fat, and supports a few isolated cottonwood trees
(Populus sp.). Two exotic species, giant reed and brass buttons, are commonly
found throughout the riparian zone.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area included human activity,
ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -22
Study Area No. 6: Eastbluff Remnant
Southern coastal bluff scrub at Eastbluff Remnant
The 36.5 -acre Eastbluff Remnant
ESA extends along the eastern side
of Back Bay Drive from Jamboree
Road to Eastbluff Drive, and is
bordered by Upper Newport Bay to
the north and west, residential
development to the east, and San
Joaquin Hills Road to the south.
This study area consists of three
main plant communities, including
southern coastal bluff scrub, Diegan
coastal sage scrub, and southern
willow scrub.
Most of the study area consists of steeply sloped west - facing bluffs. The areas
support mainly southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation with some evidence of
Dieagan coastal sage scrub species. Plant species associated with this area
include saltbush, tree lupine, coastal goldenbush, California bush sunflower,
coyote brush, California buckwheat, prickly pear, cholla (Opuntia sp.), California
sagebrush, and lemonadeberry.
There are varying degrees of previous disturbance, mostly resulting from the
adjacent residential area to the east. Several non - native species are found
throughout these areas, including sea fig, tree tobacco, sweet fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), black mustard, and castor bean.
The Dieagan coastal sage scrub habitat dominates the upper, less steep portions
of the parcel, and is primarily composed of California sagebrush, coyote brush,
prickly pear, and Mexican elderberry, poison oak, and lemonadeberry.
Southern willow scrub vegetation may be found within several tributaries to
Newport Bay and along the eastern edge of Back Bay Road, where water
accumulates before entering the bay. These areas are dominated by willow and
mule fat. Dense stands of Mexican elderberry, willow, and poison oak dominate
the north - facing slopes in the northeastern portion of the East Bluff parcel.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion,
increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public
access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -23
Study Area No. 7: Mouth of Bia Canyon
The 52.0 -acre Big Canyon ESA is
located on the east side of Newport
Bay, between Back Bay Drive and
Jamboree Road. The Mouth of Big
Canyon site is bordered by Upper
Newport Bay to the west and
residential development to the east,
north, and south of the site.
Many trails throughout this area
provide good access for the public to
observe the variety of habitats and
plant communities. The backbone
routes for these trails are Utility Fresh water marsh at the mouth of Big Canyon
access roads needed to provide access for maintenance vehicles that service the
utilities that have been installed in this site. This site provides an opportunity to
establish an interpretive area that allows public access to a broad range of
habitats and plant community areas that should be reestablished as a destination
for the public.
Seven plant communities characterize this site, including southern willow scrub,
Diegan coastal sage scrub, non - native grassland, southern coastal bluff scrub,
southern coastal salt marsh, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, and
coastal freshwater marsh.
Big Canyon is oriented perpendicular to the bay. The upper (eastern) portion of
the creek supports native plants characteristic of southern willow scrub
communities dominated by densely growing willows and mule fat. The upland
areas within the eastern region contain a mixture of disturbed Diegan coastal sage
scrub and non- native grassland. Plant species found in this area include coyote
brush, lemonadeberry, black mustard, and sweet fennel. The canyon is outlined
by intermittent stands of ornamental trees and shrubs including eucalyptus and
acacia, which are located next to the adjacent residential zones.
The mouth of the canyon widens towards the bay and supports a mixture of
southern coastal bluff scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub along both the north
and south - facing slopes. These areas are dominated by California sagebrush,
California buckwheat, prickly pear, saltbush, lemonadeberry, and Mexican
elderberry.
The western reach of the canyon creek forms a pond, while supporting a mature
southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and coastal freshwater marsh. Fremont
cottonwood (Populus fremontii spp. fremontii), western sycamore, and willow
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -24
dominate the overstory of the riparian forest. Stinging nettle (Urtica diocia) can be
found amongst the herbaceous layer. The northern margins of the riparian forest
show evidence of dryer climates and supports revegetated species such as holly -
leaf redberry and jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis). The coastal freshwater marsh is
surrounded by cattail and sedge.
Remnants of the southern coastal salt marsh habitat are evident on the dredge sand
deposits located immediately south of the freshwater marsh, where pickleweed is
the dominant plant species.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, creek
water quality runoff, sedimentation, erosion, increased human activity, ambient
noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access.
Study Area No. 8: Newporter North
The Newport North is located in bluff
and mesa habitats along Back Bay
Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road
adjacent to Upper Newport Bay.
The 49.2 -acre Newporter North ESA
is bordered by Upper Newport Bay
to the west, the Hyatt Newporter
Hotel to the south, Jamboree Road
to the east, and residential
development to the east and north of
the site.
The Newporter North ESA is
Diegan coastal scrub on the slopes of Newporter North characterized by five plant
communities, including southern
willow scrub (disturbed), coastal freshwater marsh, Diegan coastal sage scrub,
southern coastal bluff scrub, and non - native grassland.
A drainage (John Wayne Gulch) runs east to west from Jamboree Road to the
bay. The upper (eastern) portion of the drainage supports native plant species that
are characteristic of southern willow scrub communities including willows, mule fat,
and Mexican elderberry. This drainage also supports many exotic species
including myoporum, tree tobacco, eucalyptus, pampas grass (Cortaderia
selloana), and sweet fennel. The lower (western) portion of the drainage widens
into a coastal freshwater marsh before reaching the bay. This area is thickly
vegetated and dominated by cattail, sedge, and brass buttons. Additionally, there
is a wetland restoration area located in the far northeast portion of this parcel,
which is dominated by willows, mule fat, and cattails.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -25
Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs at higher elevations within the parcel along the
south and north - facing slopes. Plant species associated within this area include
California sagebrush, coyote brush, California bush sunflower, California
buckwheat, Mexican elderberry, coastal goldenbush, and deerweed. An area
located just south of San Joaquin Hills Road supports densely growing coastal
sage scrub vegetation. A small square parcel of coastal sage scrub bordered by
Newporter Way and Jamboree Road is found within this section of the study area.
The steeper west - facing slopes, located above Back Bay Drive to the north and
south of the main canyon, support southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Plant
species associated with this area include saltbush, tree lupine, prickly pear,
coyote brush, California buckwheat, coastal goldenbush, and California bush
sunflower.
Historically, most of the upland areas located in the southwestern portion of the
parcel most likely supported coastal sage scrub communities; however land
modification and clearing has disturbed these areas, leaving many sections
supporting only non - native grasslands. Common species found within the non-
native grassland community include black mustard, white sweetclover (Melilotus
alba), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), and pampas grass.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion,
increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public
access.
Study Area No. 9: Buck Gully
Buck Gully is a natural feature
extending between Little Corona
Beach and the San Joaquin Hills.
The 74.2 -acre Buck Gully ESA
does not include the sections of the
canyon that are located outside of
the coastal zone or within Newport
Coast. The ESA is bordered by the
Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and
residential and commercial
development to the southeast,
northwest, and north of the site.
Pacific Coast Highway bisects the
canyon. Drainage from Buck Gully Buck Gully southwest from Coast Highway
empties on to Little Corona Beach.
The portion of Buck Gully between the extension of Fifth Avenue and Little Corona
is under private ownership.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -26
The Buck Gully ESA is dominated by Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern
mixed chaparral, with southern willow scrub, annual grassland, and coastal
freshwater marsh occurring as smaller components of the community. Diegan
coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral encompass the majority of the
gully - from the upper rims to the alluvial bottoms. A narrow ribbon of southern
willow scrub riparian habitat is supported by an unnamed creek that flows along
the canyon bottom the length of the gully. Patches of annual grassland occur
throughout the chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats and also in areas where
native vegetation has been cleared for fire prevention. The narrow, western reach
of the canyon is largely encroached upon by the adjacent residential areas to the
southeast and northwest. The upper slopes in this area of the canyon support a
mix of disturbed southern mixed chaparral, a small patch of coastal sage scrub,
and non - native ornamental vegetation originating from the surrounding homes.
Typical chaparral species in this area include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia),
laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and ceanothus ( Ceanothus sp.) Non - native and
ornamental species include giant reed (Arundo donax), acacia, eucalyptus,
myoporum, Mexican fan palm, Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius),
Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), castor bean (Ricinus communis), tree
tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), and fennel
(Foeniculum vulgare). The canyon bottom in this area is dominated by riparian
vegetation including willows (Salix spp.), blackberry (Rubes sp.), cattail (Typha
sp.), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). A small freshwater marsh comprised almost
exclusively of cattail is situated at the mouth of the gully adjoining Little Corona
Beach.
The central section of the canyon immediately northeast of the Coast Highway,
while closely confined by residential development, contains fewer ornamental plant
species than the coastal portion and supports southern mixed chaparral and
southern willow scrub habitats with species compositions similar to the lower
canyon. The chaparral in this area supports toyon, laurel sumac, ceanothus,
chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), scrub oak
(Quercus berberidifolia), southern honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata), redberry
(Rhamnus crocea), bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurandacus), and sugar bush
(Rhus ovata).
Approximately adjacent to the intersection of 5th Avenue and Poppy Avenue, the
gully veers east and opens into a broader canyon. The southern slopes of the
canyon in this area support dense stands of southern mixed chaparral, while the
northern slopes support disturbed annual grassland, possibly established as
chaparral and coastal sage scrub, but subsequently cleared for fire prevention by
homeowners. At present, the annual grassland contains black mustard (Brassica
nigra), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), wild
oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), barley (Horedum sp.), ripgut
brome (Bromus diandrus), and fennel. Diegan coastal sage scrub becomes more
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -27
dominant as the canyon slopes on the upper portions of the canyon veer
eastward. This community is composed of California sagebrush (Artemisia
califomica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia
apiana), prickly pear (Optunia sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), blue
elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, and California
bush sunflower (Encelia califomica).
The canyon floor of Buck Gully supports a southern willow scrub community,
dominated by willows and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), with occasional western
sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and cottonwood (Populus fremonth). Associated
plant species include cattail, blue elderberry, poison oak (Toxicodendron
diversilobum), rush (Juncus spp.), and nutsedge (Cyperus sp.).
The upper canyon is broader than the lower canyon and is therefore less impacted
by adjacent development. Vegetation in this area is primarily Diegan coastal sage
scrub and southern mixed chaparral, interrupted by occasional patches of annual
grassland, and southern willow scrub associated with the creek at the canyon
bottom.
The lower (western) portion of Buck Gully is isolated from the upper Buck Gully by
the Coast Highway. This area is closely confined by residential development on
the south and north. The proximity to development, accessibility by local residents
and their pets, and abundance of non - native ornamental plant species detract from
the quality of habitat for wildlife species in this area. The upper (eastern) portion of
Buck Gully is a broad, open, relatively undisturbed canyon. Coastal sage scrub
and mixed chaparral dominate much of the area, except for the riparian corridor
along the canyon bottom and the tops of the canyon, which are influenced by the
adjacent residential development. Much of the native vegetation near the rim of
the canyon has been removed to reduce wildfire hazard.
Ornamental and non - native plant species from the adjacent residential
development have encroached into Buck Gully, especially in the lower, narrow
portions. Annual grasslands in Buck Gully consist of nonnative annual grasses and
forbs. Some non - native inclusions were also observed in the Diegan coastal sage
scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and southern willow scrub habitats.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion,
contaminated urban runoff, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive
species, and uncontrolled public access.
Study Area No. 10: Morning Canyon
Morning Canyon is oriented perpendicular to the coastline between Corona
Highlands and Cameo Highlands. The 11.2 -acre study area is bordered by the
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -28
Pacific Ocean to the west, Pelican Hills Golf Course to the east, and residential
development to the north and south of the site. Morning Canyon is under private
ownership.
& Morning Canyon is characterized by
;. sa disturbed, remnant, southern mixed
i• P. chaparral vegetation on the ca nyon
floor and along the upland slopes.
This area, however, contains few
11� i1ii;
remaining native species and is
dominated by non - native and
ornamental species that have
invaded the canyon from adjacent
residential areas located immediately
to the northwest and southeast.
Native plant species in the remnant
Morning Canyon near Pelican Bay Golf Course southern mixed chaparral community
include coyote brush, toyon, mountain
mahogany (Cercopcarpus betuloides), lemonadeberry, and blue elderberry. Non-
native species include fennel, pampas grass, acacia, date palm (Phoenix sp.), fig
(Ficus sp.), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
discolor), tree tobacco, pittosporum (Pittosporum sp.), and castor bean.
The canyon bottom once supported a southern willow scrub and willows, mule fat,
and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) can still be observed growing among the
dominant non - native vegetation, though these species are no longer common
enough to consider this habitat to be southern willow scrub. Nonnative plant
species now dominate the bottom and lower slopes of the canyon and include
giant reed, acacia, hottentot fig, eucalyptus, myoporum, Mexican fan palm,
Brazilian pepper tree, Peruvian pepper tree, pampas grass, ivy (Hedera sp.), and
fennel.
Although most of the native riparian- associated species have been displaced by
non - native and ornamental species, the area is still used by riparian wildlife, such
as American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncus), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla
garrulous), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
opossum (Didelphis virginiana). The presence of a perennial watercourse along
with a structurally diverse woody vegetation community provides the necessary
habitat attributes that are essential to riparian- associated species.
The lower, southwestern section of Morning Canyon is separated from the upper
section of Morning Canyon by the Coast Highway. The entire canyon is very
narrow and closely bordered by residential development on the northwest and
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -29
southeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and the Pelican Hills Golf Course
at the northeastern edge of the area. Ornamental species have completely
displaced native vegetation in much of canyon and now dominate throughout the
majority of this ESA. Pets from the adjacent residences likely use the area and
further discourage wildlife use of the canyon.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include increased human
activity, ambient noise, invasive species, erosion, sedimentation, and uncontrolled
public access.
Study Area No. 11: Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area
The 85.8 -acre Newport Beach Marine
Conservation Area extends from
Little Corona Beach to Cameo
Shores Road. The refuge's coastline
length is 0.6 miles (mi). It extends a
distance of 200 feet (ft) offshore and
to depths of about 18 ft Mean Lower
Low Water (MLLW). This refuge is
significant because it is the first
section of rocky intertidal and rocky
subtidal habitat south of Point
Fermin, along with the Irvine Coast
Marine Conservation Area. While
sections of the refuge are within high Arch Rock in the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area
visitor use areas (Little Corona Tide
Pools) and have exhibited declines in biodiversity related to public use as well as
natural processes, the downcoast section of the refuge in the vicinity of Cameo
Shores is relatively inaccessible and exhibits less human -use disturbances. The
beach is fronted by a sandstone bluff mixed with native coastal scrub and
introduced vegetation. Intertidal areas consist of platform intertidal reefs and
pocket sandy beaches, with conspicuous offshore rocks, stacks, and arches.
Subtidally, the seafloor is a mixture of sand bottom and reefs. The siltstone reefs
extend seaward of the limits of the refuge to depths of about 50 ft. Numerous
types of plants, invertebrates, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the
refuge, and marine mammals (sea lions, bottlenose dolphin, and gray whales) will
occasionally pass through. Tide pools use at Little Corona is managed by the
City's tide pool ranger program, which includes docent -led tours of more than
3,000 students annually.
Runoff from the surrounding watershed and streets enter the refuge at several
points, the largest being Buck Gully, which drains across the sandy beach into the
refuge. This runoff consists of various pollutants, such as fecal material from pets,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -30
oil and grease, fertilizers, and other urban -based pollutants. In addition, Buck
Gully runoff contributes to high- suspended sediment loads to the refuge,
particularly during years of high rainfall and runoff, which increases water turbidity
and reduces submarine light levels. Water quality in the refuge is also likely
influenced by the quality of the tidal waters flushed from Newport Bay on the
outgoing tides, which tend to move downcoast oriented longshore currents.
Heavy human use of the refuge has a major impact on the refuge's intertidal
marine resources, resulting from illegal collecting and trampling of intertidal plants
and invertebrates. Party boats and commercial and sport fishing vessels, as well
as skin divers and scuba divers frequent the waters of the refuge for fishing and
collecting. Commercial lobster fishermen also utilize the nearshore reefs within
the refuge. These activities have a potential to reduce the productivity of the
nearshore fishery.
The Irvine Coast Marine Conservation Area will expand to include the Newport
Beach Marine Conservation Area and parts of the Laguna Beach Marine
Conservation Area, and will be named the Crystal Cove State Marine Reserve
under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). The goal of the MLPA (Chapter
1015, Statutes of 1999) is to set up a system for evaluating and coordinating
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the state. The MLPA states that "marine life
reserves" are essential elements of an MPA system because they "protect habitat
and ecosystems, conserve biological diversity, provide a sanctuary for fish and
other sea life, enhance recreational and educational opportunities, provide a
reference point against which scientists can measure changes elsewhere in the
marine environment, and may help rebuild depleted fisheries." The CDFG is
required to develop a comprehensive master plan that combines ecosystem
management with protection and public outreach for the state's MPAs, including
the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area. Under state marine reserve status,
commercial and recreational fishing could be further restricted or prohibited to
protect marine resources.
Study Area No. 12: Castaways
The 23.3 -acre Castaways ESA is located east of Dover Drive and south of
Castaways Lane along Upper Newport Bay. A church and offices are located to
the north, residential developments are located immediately west and Lower
Castaways is located between the study area and the Coast Highway Bridge.
Several trails cross throughout the site and can be accessed via Castaways Lane.
The Castaways site is designated as a view park. The existing trail system
encourages and directs the public to locations where the views of the coast,
harbor and bay can be enjoyed with minimal impacts to the natural habitats.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -31
Coastal bluff scrub at Castaways
The Castaways site is characterized
by four plant communities: southern
willow scrub, Diegan coastal sage
scrub (a restoration area), southern
coastal bluff scrub, and non - native
grassland.
The center of the site is characterized
by non - native grassland, which
comprises the majority of the site.
Plant species associated with this
community include black mustard,
Russian thistle, and Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon). Several dirt trails
and paved routes transect the parcel.
A drainage runs north -to -south from the church parking lot parallel to Dover Drive.
This drainage is dominated by native plant species that are characteristic of
southern willow scrub communities including willows, mule fat, western sycamore,
cattail, and Mexican elderberry. A second ephemeral drainage runs east -to -west
from the hilltop near Dover Drive. This feature supports mainly upland and non-
native vegetation including Brazilian pepper tree, Peruvian pepper tree, acacia,
eucalyptus, myoporum, tree tobacco, and lemonadeberry.
The eastern portion of the site located along the east - facing slopes that overlook
the bay support southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Saltbush, tree lupine,
prickly pear, coyote brush, California buckwheat, and coastal goldenbush, and
California bush sunflower dominate the vegetative cover. The bluff area is fenced
and protected from direct disturbance. Bluff habitat within this study area is
continuous with the bluff habitat that stretches north to Polaris Drive.
A Diegan coastal sage scrub restoration area is located within the northwest
portion of the parcel, immediately east of the riparian area. Plant species
associated with this area include California sagebrush, coyote brush, California
buckwheat, black sage (Salvia mellifera), and coastal goldenbush.
The Diegan coastal sage scrub restoration area is the first phase of Castaways
Park Revegetation Project. The project will remove the non - native and ruderal
vegetation and replace it with new native vegetation to create a view park for
passive recreation and nature observation.
Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include increased human
activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -32
Study Area No.13: Newport Harbor Entrance Channel Kelp Beds
The giant kelp (Macrocystis
pyrifera) bed within the Newport
Harbor Entrance Channel is one of
the only giant kelp bed habitats
currently existing between Seal
Beach and South Orange County.
Giant kelp beds, once found
abundantly along the coastline
between Corona del Mar and
Laguna Beach are now extremely
sparse. Warming trends, El Nino
storm events, ecological
Giant kelp bed habitat at Newport Harbor Entrance imbalances due to over fishing, and
extensive grading of lands around
drainages adjacent to kelp beds that increase suspended sediment loads to the
ocean are important contributors to the decline of kelp beds in southern California
and have likely resulted in the decline of kelp beds within the Newport Beach
Marine Conservation Area and the Irvine Coast Marine Conservation Area /Crystal
Cove State Park. Giant kelp currently is rare within these refuges. Giant kelp
reforestation is being attempted in Crystal Cove State Underwater Park. However,
it is still too early to evaluate the success of this project.
Occurring along nearly half of the length of the west jetty and extending from
depths of 10 to 30 feet, the Newport Harbor Entrance giant kelp bed, while
relatively small, has maintained itself over a period of several years while other
kelp beds along the Newport Beach and Laguna Beach have declined. Two
separate kelp beds are present. The largest bed is located along the outermost
half of the west jetty, while a second and smaller bed is located along inner third of
the west jetty. The total acreage of kelp is approximately 1.16 acres. It is a
productive and viable resource and supports over 70 species of plants,
invertebrates, and fishes. During subtidal reconnaissance dives of underwater
habitats along the Newport coastline in 2002, the marine life associated with the
Newport Harbor Entrance Channel jetty quarry rock and within the kelp bed was
second only to the 200 Meter Reef, located in the Crystal Cove Underwater Park,
in species richness.
Dredging activity and jetty reconstruction projects have a potential to reduce the
viability of the kelp beds located within the Harbor Entrance Channel. Future
projects conducted within the Entrance Channel should include protection
measures to avoid long -term impacts to kelp bed resources.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -33
TABLE 4.1 -1
Environmental Study Area Impacts and Miti ation Measures
Study
Area
Name
Water
Qualify'
Traffic
Noise
Public
Access
Development
Encroachment
Erosion,
Sedimentation
Dredging or
Stormwater
Invasive
Feral
Mitigations to Reduce
the Potential Impacts of
No.
Filling
Runoff
Species
Animals
Identified Threats
1
Semeniuk
x
x
x
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (A)
Slough
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N)
2
North Star
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
POLICY4.1.3 -1 (B)
Beach
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N
3
West Bay
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N
4
UNBMP
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
and De
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
Anza
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
Bayside
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
Marsh
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
Peninsula
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G)
POLICY 4.13-1 (H)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (I)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N
View of De AnzatBayside Marsh Peninsula from Castaways Park Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -34
TABLE 4.1 -1
Environmental Study Area Impacts and Miti ation Measures
Study
Area
Name
Water
Traffic
Noise
Public
Development
Erosron'
Sedimentation
Dredging or
Stormwater
Invasive
Feral
Mitigations to Reduce
the Potential Impacts of
Quality
Access
Encroachment
Filling
Runoff
Species
Animals
Identified Threats
No.
5
San Diego
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (B)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (C)
.Creek
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N
6
East Bluff
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
Remnant
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (0)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 N
7
Mouth of
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (B)
Big
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (C)
Canyon
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (0)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N)
8
Newporter
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
North
POLICY 4.1.3-1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N
9
Buck Gully
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (N
10
Morning
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
Canyon
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY4.1.3 -1 N
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -35
TABLE 4.1 -1
Environmental Study Area Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Study
Area
Name
Water
Traffic
Noise
Public
Development
Erosion,
Sedimentation
Dredging or
Stormwater
Invasive
Feral
Mitigations to Reduce
the Potential Impacts of
p
No.
Quality,
Access
Encroachment
Fliling
Runoff
Species
Animals
Identified Threats
11
Newport
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (B)
Beach
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (J)
Marine
POLICY 4.13-1 (K)
Conservati
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (L)
on Area
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (M)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 N
12
Castaways
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (D)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E)
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (G)
POLICY 4.1.3.1 N
13
Newport
x
x
x
x
x
X
POLICY 4.1.3.1 (N)
Harbor
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (0)
Entrance
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (P)
Channel
POLICY 4.1.3 -1 O
water quality issues include one or more types a subcategories
suspended sediments
nutrient enrichment
60DICOD
Metals and petroleum hydrocarbons
conform bacteria, viruses, pathogens
Upper Newport Bay Marine Park
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -36
Policies:
4.1.3 -1. Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for
adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but
not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1:
A. Require removal of unauthorized bulkheads, docks and patios or
other structures that impact wetlands or other sensitive habitat
areas.
B. Where pedestrian access is permitted, avoid adverse impacts to
sensitive areas from pedestrian traffic through the use of well -
defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, signage, and
similar methods.
C. Prohibit the planting of non - native plant species and require the
removal of non - natives in conjunction with landscaping or
revegetation projects in natural habitat areas.
D. Strictly control encroachments into natural habitats to prevent
impacts that would significantly degrade the habitat.
E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is
consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy
4.2.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
F. 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.
G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of
bluffs.
H. Participate in implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) — see Section 4.3 (Water Quality).
I. Participate in programs to control sedimentation into and within
Upper Newport Bay.
J. Use docent programs to actively manage and enforce CDFG
regulations in marine protected areas regarding the taking of
intertidal and subtidal plants and animals and to minimize
incidental trampling.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -37
K. Manage public access as required to minimize damage to tide
pools.
L. Control upstream pollution sources from Buck Gully, Morning
Canyon and storm drain runoff from local streets to the maximum
extent practical to reduce sediment, nutrient, fecal coliform, and
toxic pollutant loads.
M. Implement TMDLs into Newport Bay and local watersheds to
minimize water quality problems along the coastline.
N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in . new
development.
O. Implement and enforce TMDLs in watershed and Upper Newport
Bay to improve water quality in Newport Harbor.
P. Require dredging and jetty reconstruction projects conducted
within the Entrance Channel to include protection measures to
avoid long -term impacts to kelp bed resources.
Q. Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of
City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify
the SCCAT when found.
4.1.3 -2. Prohibit the planting of invasive species in non - urbanized areas.
4.1.3 -3. Prepare natural habitat protection overlays for Buck Gully ESA and
Morning Canyon ESA for the purpose of providing standards to
ensure both the protection and restoration of the natural habitats in
these areas. Include in the overlays standards for the placement of
structures, native vegetation /fuel modification buffers, and erosion
and sedimentation control structures.
4.1.3 -4. Continue to work within the Newport Bay Watershed Executive
Committee structure to address sedimentation, nutrient loading, and
bacteria and toxins from runoff. The Committee includes
representatives from the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach,
Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin,
in addition to the Irvine Ranch Water District, the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region), the California
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the County of Orange, and the Irvine Company. The Watershed
Executive Committee, in implementing four separate "total maximum
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -38
daily loads" for Newport Bay, has developed and is implementing
plans to control sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic materials in
the Bay's watershed.
4.1.3 -5. Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game and
the County of Orange in developing a management plan for the
Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and the Upper Newport Bay
Nature Preserve.
4.1.3 -6. Maintain public use of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park to the
extent such use is consistent with the preservation of sensitive
resources.
4.1.3 -7. Coordinate with County and State resource agencies to monitor
ecological conditions within the Newport Beach Marine Conservation
Area and to implement management programs to protect this marine
conservation area. Maintain public use of the refuges to the extent it
is consistent with the preservation of intertidal and subtidal
resources.
4.1.3 -8. Support the construction of tide pool exhibits at the Back Bay
Science Center on Shellmaker Island to provide an educational
alternative to the tide pools at Corona del Mar and Crystal Cove
State Park beaches.
4.1.3 -9. Support giant kelp reforestation programs.
4.1.3 -10. Remove unauthorized structures that encroach into Semeniuk
Slough, the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park, or other wetland areas.
Prohibit future encroachment of structures into these areas unless
structures are absolutely necessary for public well being. Minimize
any necessary encroachment into wetland habitats to the extent
feasible and permanent loss of wetlands habitat shall be mitigated.
4.1.3 -11. Routine maintenance of drainage courses and facilities,
sedimentation basins, trails, access roads, public infrastructure, and
other related facilities may be allowed if carried out in accordance
with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -39
4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows
Eelgrass can be found worldwide in quiet, temperate -water mud or sand habitats.
In Southern California, eelgrass can be found in coastal wetlands, bays, and
harbors at depths between +1 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to about —25
feet MLLW and on nearshore coastal sand bottoms to depths of 50 to 80 feet
MLLW. The conditions favorable for the growth of this plant are periods of low
rainfall, runoff and sedimentation, good light penetration, optimum temperature
range (50 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit), moderate dissolved oxygen concentration,
limited algal growth and good water quality. Once established, eelgrass patches
can expand through vegetative growth along extended rhizomes to form vast
meadows.
At present (2003), eelgrass is abundant in several sections of Newport Harbor and
has been expanding its distribution in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay over the
last several years due to favorable growing conditions, lack of heavy rainfall,
minimal runoff, and more stringent water quality regulations. The lowest recorded
eelgrass coverage occurred in 1993 with less than 3 acres. A 2002 survey found
approximately 35 acres of eelgrass coverage. Its depth range in Newport Bay is
from 0.0 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to —28 ft. On the average, however,
most eelgrass in the Bay grows to a depth of about —8 to —10 ft MLLW. It grows
deepest in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel.
Eelgrass grows extensively within the Harbor Entrance Channel, where it covers
approximately 20 acres of underwater sandy bottom habitat. Other sections of
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-40
Newport Bay that currently support extensive eelgrass beds include the eastern
shoreline of the Bay between Carnation Cove to the Coast Guard Base, Balboa
Island (and in the Grand Canal), along the eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula,
around Harbor Island, within the Linda Isle Basin, and in the channels around its
perimeter. Eelgrass is currently expanding its distribution. Locations where
smaller beds have become established within the last few years include the
southern edge of the Bayshores development, a shoal immediately south of the
Coast Highway Bridge near the Swales Marina; Lido Isle, and on the north side of
Lido Reach between the Bayshores community west to the Balboa Bay Club.
July 2002 observations indicate eelgrass is recolonizing shallow subtidal habitat in
Upper Newport Bay between the Coast Highway Bridge and Dover Shores along
both sides of the Main Channel after a long -term absence.
Some of the eelgrass currently growing in Newport Harbor is the result of previous
eelgrass transplants conducted during dredging of the Entrance Channel in the
early 1980s, and in the Grand Canal on Balboa Island in 1999. These transplant
programs were conducted as mitigation for Newport Harbor projects that resulted
in the loss of eelgrass habitat. A large -scale eelgrass restoration program is
currently being planned for Newport Harbor by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the County of Orange, and the City of Newport Beach with the goal of enhancing
between 5 and 10 acres of eelgrass to the Harbor within eight I pilot project
restoration sites starting in May 2004. This will add a significant amount of
biological value to the Harbor. Once established, these restoration sites will be
enhanced by further plantings and serve as eelgrass mitigation sites for the loss of
eelgrass habitat for small harbor dredging projects (500 to 1000 cubic yards).
Dredging and dock and bulkhead construction projects have a potential to impact
eelgrass bed resources within several areas of Newport Bay through direct habitat
loss or secondary effects of turbidity or vessel anchor scarring. However, ongoing
maintenance of harbor structures and periodic dredging is essential to protect the
Newport Harbor's value as a commercial and recreational resource. A
comprehensive and balanced management plan is necessary in order to maintain
the recreational and commercial uses of the harbor while protecting its natural
marine resources (see Section 4.2.5 — Eelgrass Protection and Restoration).
Policies:
4.1.4 -1. Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological
function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay
ecosystem.
4.1.4 -2. Implement eelgrass restoration and enhancement programs in
Newport Harbor.
4.1.4 -3. Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -41
extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows.
Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and
the growth of eelgrass.
4.1.4 -4. Provide for the protection of eelgrass meadows and mitigation of
impacts to eelgrass meadows in a comprehensive harbor area
management plan for Newport Bay.
4.1.4 -5. Where applicable require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxifolia surveys to
be conducted as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport
Bay in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols.
4.1.5 Coastal Foredunes
Dune habitats are identified by
stands of dense to sparse annual 11i„
and perennial herbs, grasses, or 'r
shrubs occurring on sand dunes
along the coast. Dune habitat is
considered a sensitive plant{ �
community and is listed as rare or
threatened or is otherwise protected
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of
Fish and Game, California Coastal }
Commission, or local agencies.
Loss of dune habitat as a result of tttt
coastal development is considered Southern coastal foredune habitat on the Balboa Peninsula
to be a significant environmental
impact, and any potential impacts to this resource must be avoided, minimized, or
compensated.
In Newport Beach, southern coastal foredune habitat extends southwest along the
ocean side of the Balboa Peninsula from 10th Street to the tip of the peninsula.
The vegetation in this community is generally sparse with overall cover ranging
from 20 to 70 percent in some areas, while other areas are completely devoid of
vegetation. Areas of open sand fragment this habitat. Dominant plant species
include non - native species such as purple sand - verbena (Abronia umbellata), sea
rocket (Cakile maritima), beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia),
sea -fig (Carpobrotus chiliensis), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), beach morning
glory (Calystegia soldanella), and beach bur (Ambrosia chamissonis).
Ornamental and non - native species, likely introduced from the adjacent
residences, dominate much of the southern coastal foredune habitat. Numerous
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-42
residences use the beach area as an extension of their backyards. Some
residents have planted and irrigated the ornamental species, which have replaced
native species in these areas. Increased human activity and uncontrolled public
access also adversely impact these dune habitats, as evidenced by the numerous
trails bisecting the dunes. Many areas are almost completely covered by sea -fig
and hottentot fig. If dune habitat losses cannot be avoided, then mitigation
programs to restore dune habitat within Newport Beach should be implemented.
Policies:
4.1.5 -1. Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native
vegetation in dune habitat.
4.1.5 -2. Direct public access away from dune habitat areas through the use
of well - defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, signage,
and similar methods.
4.1.5 -3. Design and site recreation areas to avoid impacts to dune habitat
areas.
4.1.5 -4. Require a coastal development permit for earthmoving beach sand in
dune habitat areas.
4.1.5 -5. Limit earthmoving of beach sand in dune habitat areas to projects
necessary for the protection of coastal resources and existing
development.
Iceplant encroachment into southern coastal foredunes
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-43
4.2 Wetlands and Deepwater Areas
The Coastal Act distinguishes wetlands from other types of water areas, such as
estuaries and open coastal waters. Section 30121 of the Coastal Act defines
"wetlands" as "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater
marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens."
Therefore, the interpretation of the term "shallow water" can be used to distinguish
wetlands from other submerged areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines
the boundary between wetland and deepwater habitat as the elevation of extreme
low -water of spring tide for areas subject to tidal influence. Therefore, for
purposes of the Coastal Act, wetlands can be interpreted as beginning at extreme
low -water of spring tide and "estuary" or "open coastal water" is anything deeper.
4.2.1 Southern California Wetlands
Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is often covered by shallow
water during some parts of the year. Wetlands can be categorized according to
specific habitat and type of vegetation. In Southern California, wetlands generally
fall into four categories: estuarine wetlands, such as the Upper Newport Bay and
Semeniuk Slough; freshwater marshes, which can be found in Big Canyon, Buck
Gully, and San Diego Creek; riparian wetlands, which occur along creeks and
streams or bodies of water; and vernal pools, which can be found on Banning
Ranch.
Southern California coastal wetlands and watersheds have been dramatically
altered or destroyed by human activities over the past 150 years. Wetlands have
been filled and rivers, streams, and creeks have been rerouted, dammed,
channelized, and paved. Estimates of historic wetland acreages compiled from
the literature and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey maps created between 1851
and 1893 indicate a loss of 70 percent reduction in coastal wetlands in Southern
California.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-44
Wetlands are recognized as very important ecosystems with the following multiple
values and functions:
■ Biological Diversity. Wetlands provide important habitat for diverse
communities of plants and animals, including federally listed threatened or
endangered species.
■ Waterfowl Habitat. Wetlands provide the principal habitat for migratory
waterfowl. California provides critical wintering habitat for millions of
waterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway, which extends from Canada
to Mexico.
■ Fisheries. Wetlands provide direct spawning and rearing habitats and food
supply that supports both freshwater and marine fisheries.
■ Flood Control. Wetlands detain flood flows, reducing the size and
destructiveness of floods.
Water Quality. Wetlands absorb and filter pollutants that could otherwise
degrade ground water or the water quality of rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
• Ground Water Recharge. Some wetlands recharge aquifers that provide
urban and agricultural water supplies.
■ Recreation. Wetlands support a multi - million - dollar fishing, hunting, and
outdoor recreation industry nationwide.
The Coastal Act requires the projection of wetlands. Development or alteration of
coastal wetlands is primarily regulated by Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, which
provides that the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, or
estuaries may only be permitted where there is no less environmentally damaging
alternative and must be restricted to a narrow range of allowable uses. The
Coastal Act also requires the protection of biological productivity and quality of
coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. Water quality issues are
discussed in detail in Section 4.3 (Water Quality).
Two federal statutes provide the primary regulatory authority over wetlands. The
Clean Water Act (Section 404(b)) regulates disposal of dredge and fill materials
into waters of the United States, including all streams to their headwaters, lakes
over 10 acres, and contiguous wetlands, including those above the ordinary high
water mark in non -tidal waters and mean high tide in tidal waters. The River and
Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10) regulates the diking, filling, and placement of
structures in navigable waterways. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is primarily
responsible for the implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations
pertaining to both sections of these statutes. The Environmental Protection
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-45
Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) review
applications for Section 404 permits and can provide the Corps with comments
and recommendations reflecting agency concerns.
Policies:
4.2.1 -1. Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational,
water quality, and habitat value.
4.2.1 -2. Protect, maintain and, where feasible, restore the biological
productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands,
estuaries, and lakes.
4.2.1 -3. Chan neIizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and
streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and
be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control
projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in
the floodplain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for
public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments
where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife
habitat.
4.2.2 Wetland Definition and Delineation
Due to semi -arid Mediterranean climate of Southern California, some wetlands can
remain dry for one or more seasons. This presents problems for the identification
and delineation of wetlands. Section 30121 of the Coastal Act defines "wetlands"
as 'lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater
marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens."
However, a more specific definition is provided in Section 13577 (b -1) of the
California Code of Regulations:
"...land where the water table is at near, or above the land surface long enough
to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes,
and shall also include types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is
poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent drastic fluctuations of surface
water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentration of salts or
other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the
presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some during each year and
their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetland or deepwater habitats."
The boundary line between the wetland and adjacent upland area is determined
by the extent of one or more key wetland characteristics: hydrology (frequency,
duration, and timing of inundation or saturation), hydric soils (soil with
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -46
characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation), and hydrophytic vegetation
(plants adapted to life in water, or in periodically flooded and /or saturated
anaerobic soils). Positive wetland indicators of all three characteristics are
normally present in wetlands. However, the presence of only one of these
characteristics (e.g., hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation) is needed
for an area to qualify as a wetland, pursuant to the California Code of Regulations.
Hydrology is the key characteristic because it drives the formation of hydric soils
and allows hydrophytic vegetation to establish dominance. However, hydrology is
the most difficult of the three wetland characteristics to quantify. Many of the
hydrology indicators are subjective and often it is difficult to determine the timing
and duration o f hydrology without visual observation. Therefore, the Coastal
Commission considers a predominance of hydrophytes or a predominance of
hydric soils as evidence that the land was "wet enough long enough" to develop
wetland characteristics.
Policies:
4.2.2 -1. Define wetlands as areas where the water table is at, near, or above
the land surface long enough to bring about the formation of hydric
soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes. Such wetlands can
include areas where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly
developed or absent as a result of frequent drastic fluctuations of
surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high
concentration of salts or other substances in the substrate.
Wetlands do not include areas which in normal rainfall years are
permanently submerged (streams, lakes, ponds and impoundments),
nor marine or estuarine areas below extreme low water of spring
tides.
4.2.2 -2. Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of all wetland
areas when the initial site survey indicates the presence or potential
for wetland species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be
conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries
contained in section 13577(b) of the California Code of Regulations.
4.2.2 -3. Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure
the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are
designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of
100 feet wherever possible. Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed
only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 -foot wide buffer is
not possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed
narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity
of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource
and of the type and intensity of disturbance.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
447
4.2.3 Dredging, Diking, and Filling
Upper Newport Bay
Newport Bay is an estuary, an embayment along the coast where inland fresh
water mixes with salt water from the ocean. Newport Bay's main source of fresh
water is San Diego Creek. Historically only about 15 square miles of land drained
into the bay via San Diego Creek. However, San Diego Creek was channelized in
1968 so that peak floods and sediment could be efficiently routed to the bay. This
increased the drainage area to about 118 square miles. In 1969, heavy storm
runoff poured hundreds of thousands of tons of sediment into the bay.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-48
Subsequent storm season
sedimentation events in 1978 and
1980 caused shallowing of the
Upper Bay. Intertidal saltmarsh
vegetation became established and
expanded rapidly. This would have
eventually filled the bay with
sediment and turned it into a
meadow.
In 1985, 85 acres of the Upper Bay g
were dredged out to create the Unit I
Sediment Control Basin (depths —3
to —7 feet MSL). A second dredging San Diego Creek near Back Bay Drive
project in 1988 created the 37 -acre
Unit II Sediment Control Basin, just south of the Main Dike (depth —14 feet MSL).
Both basins have worked well, collecting large volumes of coarser grained
sediment from periodic flood runoff, principally down San Diego Creek. However,
these require extensive on -going maintenance dredging. The last major dredging
activity in the bay occurred in 1998 -99. This project cleared about 900,000 cubic
yards of sediment from the bay. As the 1998 -99 project was completed, Newport
Beach, Orange County, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board, The Irvine Company, the California Department of
Fish and Game, and the watershed cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Lake
Forest, and Laguna Woods, began planning a larger, more significant project with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete the restoration of the Upper
Newport Bay.
The Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project was developed to restore
and maintain tidal movement in the bay. The project would dredge more than 2.7
million cubic yards from the Upper Bay, restore deteriorated habitat, increase blue -
water views, move the Least Tern islands, and open up several island channels in
mid -Upper Bay.
Upper Newport Bay
} F z
+/ 19 ,I
1
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -49
Lower Newport Bay /Harbor
There are approximately 1,200 harbor permits for both residential and commercial
docks within Newport Harbor. It is general policy that the responsibility for
dredging around and under private docks rests with the private property owner. In
the past, the City has secured a Regional General Permit in order to expedite
property owners' permit processing with the Corps and the California Coastal
Commission. The Regional General Permits' term is typically 5 to 10 years.
Policies:
4.2.3 -1. Permit the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters,
wetlands, estuaries, and lakes in accordance with other applicable
provisions of the LCP, where there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation
measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects and limited to the following:
A. Construction or expansion of port/marine facilities.
B. Construction or expansion of coastal- dependent industrial
facilities, including commercial fishing facilities, and
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -50
commercial ferry facilities.
C. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including
estuaries and streams, new or expanded boating facilities,
including slips, access ramps, piers, marinas, recreational
boating, launching ramps, and pleasure ferries, and the
placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that
provide public access and recreational opportunities.
D. Maintenance of existing and restoration of previously dredged
depths in navigational channels, turning basins, vessel
berthing, anchorage, and mooring areas, and boat launching
ramps. The most recently updated U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers maps shall be used to establish existing Newport
Bay depths.
E. Incidental public service purposes which temporarily impact
the resources of the area, such as burying cables and pipes,
inspection of piers, and maintenance of existing intake and
outfall lines.
F. Sand extraction for restoring beaches, except in
environmentally sensitive areas.
G. Restoration purposes.
H. Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource- dependent
activities.
In the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park, permit dredging,
diking, or filling only for the purposes of wetland restoration,
nature study, or to enhance the habitat values of
environmentally sensitive areas.
4.2.3 -2. Continue to permit recreational docks and piers as an allowable use
within intertidal areas in Newport Harbor.
4.2.3 -3. Continue support of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration
Project to restore the Upper Newport Bay to its optimal ecosystem.
4.2.3 -4. Require dredging and dredged material disposal to be planned and
carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife
habitats and water circulation.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -51
4.2.3 -5. Secure federal funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Project.
4.2.3 -6. Secure permanent use designation for the IA -3 sediment disposal
site for future dredging projects.
4.2.3 -7. Require the following mitigation measures for dredging projects in
the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park:
A. Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out
to limit turbidity and to avoid significant disruption to marine
and wildlife habitats and water circulation.
B. Maintenance dredging shall be encouraged where the
dredging enhances commercial or recreational use of the Bay.
When dredged material is of an appropriate grain size and
grain percentage, this material may be used to restore or
replace natural sandy sloping beaches in order to retain the
current profiles of Newport Bay. Maintenance dredging
activity shall have the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and shall meet applicable U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency standards.
C. Dredged material not suitable for beach nourishment or other
permitted beneficial reuse shall be disposed of offshore at a
designated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disposal
site or at an appropriate upland location.
D. Temporary dewatering of dredged spoils may be authorized
within the Bay's drainage if adequate erosion controls are
provided and the spoils are removed. A bond or a contractual
arrangement shall be a precondition to dredging of the
material, and final disposal of the dewatered material on the
approved dump site shall be accomplished within the time
period specified in the permit.
E. Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill riparian areas,
wetlands, or natural canyons.
F. Other mitigation measures may include opening areas to tidal
action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, restoring salt
marsh or eelgrass vegetation, or other restoration measures.
G. Dredge spoils suitable for beach nourishment should be
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -52
transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into
suitable longshore current systems provided that the
placement is permitted by a Section 404 permit.
4.2.3 -8. Continue to cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their
maintenance and delineation of federal navigational channels at
Newport Harbor in the interest in providing navigation and safety.
4.2.3 -9. Continue to secure Regional General Permits through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission to
expedite permit processing for residential and commercial dock
owners in the Bay.
4.2.3 -10. Seek permits authorizing maintenance dredging under and around
residential piers and floats subject to compliance with all conditions
to the current Regional General Permit, including grain size
requirements, availability of suitable dredge disposal site, and
periodic bioassays.
4.2.3 -11. Require the following minimum mitigation measures if a project
involves diking or filling of a wetland:
A. If an appropriate mitigation site is available, the applicant shall
submit a detailed plan which includes provisions for (1)
acquiring title to the mitigation site; (2) "in- kind" wetland
restoration or creation where possible; (3) where `but -of- kind"
mitigation is necessary, restoration or creation of wetlands
that are of equal or greater biological productivity to the
wetland that was filled or dredged; and (4) dedication of the
restored or created wetland and buffer to a public agency, or
permanent restriction of their use to open space purposes.
Adverse impacts shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 for impacts
to seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh and riparian areas,
and at a ratio of 4:1 for impacts to vernal pools and saltmarsh
(the ratio representing the acreage of the area to be
restored /created to the acreage of the area diked or filled),
unless the applicant provides evidence establishing, and the
approving authority finds, that restoration or creation of a
lesser area of wetlands will fully mitigate the adverse impacts
of the dike or fill project. However, in no event shall the
mitigation ratio be less than 2:1 unless, prior to the
development impacts, the mitigation is completed and is
empirically demonstrated to meet performance criteria that
establish that the created or restored wetlands are functionally
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -53
equivalent or superior to the impacted wetlands. The
mitigation shall occur on -site wherever possible. Where not
possible, mitigation should occur in the same watershed. The
mitigation site shall be purchased and legally restricted and/or
dedicated before the dike or fill development may proceed.
B. The applicant may, in some cases, be permitted to open
equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other sources of
surface water in place of creating or restoring wetlands
pursuant to paragraph A. This method of mitigation would be
appropriate if the applicant already owns, or can acquire, filled
or diked areas which themselves are not environmentally
sensitive habitat areas but which would become so if such
areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other
sources of surface water.
C. However, if no appropriate sites under options (A) and (B) are
available, the applicant shall pay an in -lieu fee of sufficient
value to an appropriate public agency for the purchase and
restoration of an area of equivalent productive value, or
equivalent surface area.
This third option would be allowed only if the applicant is unable to
find a willing seller of a potential restoration site. The public agency
may also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites even though it
has the ability to condemn property. Thus, the in -lieu fee shall reflect
the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation, as well as the
cost of restoration. If the public agency's restoration project is not
already approved by the City, the public agency may need to be a
co- applicant for a permit to provide adequate assurance that
conditions can be imposed to assure that the purchase of the
mitigation site shall occur prior to issuance of the permit. In addition,
such restoration must occur in the same general region (e.g., within
the same estuary) where the fill occurred.
4.2.3 -12. All preferred restoration programs would remove fill from a formerly
productive wetland or estuary that is now biologically unproductive
dry land and would establish a tidal prism necessary to assure
adequate flushing. Since restoration projects necessarily involve
many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking or filling
project. At a minimum, permits will be conditioned to assure that
restoration will occur simultaneously with project construction.
Restoration and management plans shall be submitted with the
permit application.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -54
4.2.3 -13. Where impacts to wetlands are allowed, require monitoring of
mitigation measures for a period of sufficient time to determine if
mitigation objectives and performance standards are being met.
Mid- course corrections shall be implemented if necessary to meet
the objectives or performance standards. Require the submittal of
monitoring reports during the monitoring period that document the
success or failure of the mitigation. To help insure that the mitigation
project is self - sustaining, final monitoring for all mitigation projects
shall take place after at least three years with no remediation or
maintenance activities other than weeding. If performance standards
are not met by the end of the prescribed monitoring period, the
monitoring period shall be extended or the applicant shall submit an
amendment application proposing alternative mitigation measures
and implement the approved changes. Unless it is determined by
the City that a differing mitigation monitoring schedule is appropriate,
it is generally anticipated that monitoring shall occur for a period of
not less than five years.
4.2.3 -14. Require that any project that includes diking, filling or dredging of a
wetland or estuary, as permitted pursuant to Policy 4.2.3 -1, maintain
the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Functional capacity
means the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self- sustaining and
to maintain natural species diversity. In order to establish that the
functional capacity is being maintained, the applicant must
demonstrate all of the following:
A. That the project does not alter presently occurring plant and
animal populations in the ecosystem in a manner that would
impair the long -term stability of the ecosystem; i.e., natural
species diversity, abundance, and composition are essentially
unchanged as a result of the project.
B. That the project does not harm or destroy a species or habitat
that is rare or endangered.
C. That the project does not harm a species or habitat that is
essential to the natural biological functioning of the wetland or
estuary.
D. That the project does not significantly reduce consumptive
(e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or non - consumptive
(e.g., water quality and research opportunity) values of the
wetland or estuarine ecosystem.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -55
4.2.3 -15. Require new development on the waterfront to design and site
docking facilities in relationship to the water's depth and accessibility.
4.2.3 -16. Design and site all structures permitted to encroach into open
coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries to harmonize with the natural
appearance of the surrounding area.
4.2.3 -17. Continue to limit residential and commercial structures permitted to
encroach beyond the bulkhead line to piers and docks used
exclusively for berthing of vessels. However, this policy shall not be
construed to allow development that requires the filling of open
coastal waters, wetlands or estuaries that would require mitigation
for the loss of valuable habitat in order to place structures closer to
the bulkhead line or create usable land areas.
4.2.3 -18. Require restoration plans to be reviewed and approved by a qualified
professional prior to accepting sites for mitigation.
Balboa Island Channel
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -56
4.2.4 Dredge Spoils Disposal
Section 30233(b) of the Coastal Act
requires that dredge spoils be disposed
of in a manner that avoids disruption to
habitats. The selection of a disposal
site for dredged sediments is dependent
upon the physical and chemical
characteristics of the material. Material
free of chemical contamination and
consisting primarily of sand of an
acceptable grain size (usually
approximately 80 percent sand) is
generally suitable for beach
nourishment and placed on appropriate
beaches or within suitable longshore
currents. Material of appropriate grain Dredging project in Balboa Island Channel
size and with minimal contamination may be disposed of at unconfined, openwater
disposal sites authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredged material that is physically suitable, but is
chemically unsuitable for aquatic disposal due to of elevated levels of certain
contaminants, may be used as fill, or in certain wetland construction and habitat
improvement projects, provided the contaminated materials are confined (e.g.,
parking lots, container piers, etc.).
Periodic maintenance dredging and habitat restoration projects in Newport Bay
require an environmentally acceptable disposal site. However, due to grain size
incompatibility, most of this material will not be suitable for beach nourishment.
Upland disposal is generally cost - prohibitive and harbor landfill and habitat
improvement projects occur too infrequently to be a reliable disposal option.
Therefore, the most practical solution is a nearby offshore disposal site. The LA -3
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) is located approximately 4 miles
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -57
Disposal of dredge material off of West Newport
off the coast of Newport Beach. The
LA -3 site has been historically used for
the disposal of dredged material from
Newport Bay and for material not
suitable for beach nourishment at
Newport Beach due to grain size
incompatibility. The LA -3 ODMDS was
designated as an interim site for the
disposal of dredged material by the
EPA. Securing LA -3 ODMS as a
permanently designated disposal site is
therefore essential to the projection of
Newport Bay as a commercial,
recreational and ecological resource.
Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on water courses can
impede the movement of sediment and nutrients which would otherwise be carried
by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these
sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these
facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline where feasible
mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development
permit for such purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement,
and sensitivity of the placement area.
Monitoring dredging projects within the region can provide opportunities to reduce
disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment. By placing the
sediment on the beach, offshore disposal costs are eliminated and the
nourishment project provides a tangible benefit from the dredging operation. In
1992, a nourishment project was devised to reduce disposal costs and to take
advantage of the large quantities of beach -grade sand from the Lower Santa Ana
River Flood Control Channel Expansion Project. Nearly 1.3 million cubic yards of
dredged material were deposited offshore of Newport Beach, which migrated to
West Newport beaches under the influence of waves and currents.
Policies:
4.2.4 -1. Cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to secure LA -3 ODMDS as a
permanently designated disposal site.
4.2.4 -2. Monitor dredging projects within the region to identify opportunities to
reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach
nourishment.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -58
4.2.4 -3. Dredged materials suitable for beneficial reuse shall be transported
for such purposes to appropriate areas and placed in a manner that
minimizes adverse effects on the environment.
4.2.4 -4. Participate in regional sediment management by maintaining records
of the number of channelized streams, miles of channelization in
streams, volumes of sediment extracted from stream channels and
debris basins, and the grain size distribution of the extracted
sediments.
4.2.4 -5. Material removed from erosion control and flood control facilities
suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such
purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current
systems.
4.2.5 Eelgrass Protection and Restoration
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an
important underwater plant that is
indicative of and supports a
healthy and diverse marine
environment (see Section 4.1.4 —
Eelgrass Meadows). Dredging
projects in the Lower Bay have
the potential to impact eelgrass
bed resources. The loss of
eelgrass as a result of coastal
development is considered to be
a significant environmental
impact, and any potential impacts
to this resource must be avoided,
minimized, or mitigated. Eelgrass in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel
Currently, mitigation requires an
expensive and time - consuming
procedure that requires the eelgrass to be replanted, monitored, and maintained
per the Southem Califomia Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. This policy was developed
in 1991 by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the California Department of Fish and Game in order to standardize and
maintain a consistent policy regarding mitigating adverse impacts to eelgrass
resources. The policy typically requires that for every square foot of eelgrass
removed, 1.2 square feet must be planted and maintained. Eelgrass mitigation
monitoring is required for a period of 5 years for most projects.
The City, the County of Orange, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have
worked with various resource agencies (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -59
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of
Fish and Game) to develop a plan whereby the City and the County of Orange
would establish, monitor, and maintain eelgrass beds. The eelgrass restoration
program is intended to enhance between 5 and 10 acres of eelgrass to the Harbor
within eight pilot restoration sites. Once deemed successful, these eight sites will
serve as eelgrass mitigation sites for City projects and as a mitigation bank from
which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property owners for
eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects.
The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy provides detailed procedures
for mitigating adverse impacts to eelgrass resources. However, the policy
contains no provision for post- recovery conditions. The policy was drafted at a
time when eelgrass coverage was near a low point in Newport Harbor. At present
(2003), eelgrass is abundant in several sections of Newport Harbor and has been
expanding its distribution in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay. The policy
requires all eelgrass patches to be protected or replaced, regardless of its size,
location, or habitat value or the extent of eelgrass coverage within the harbor.
Eelgrass protection, mitigation, and monitoring complicate and substantially
increase the cost of dredging maintenance projects, which are essential to
protecting the Newport Harbor's value as a commercial and recreational resource.
The City is developing a
conceptual eelgrass mitigation
program that will address the
establishment of eelgrass acreage
baselines for Newport Harbor. The
baseline would be the minimum
acreage, based on the distribution,
density, and productivity,
necessary for eelgrass meadows
to fulfill their ecological function.
Once the baseline is determined,
projects may be granted
exemptions to the Southern
Eelgrass restoration California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy mitigation requirements,
provided the eelgrass acreage
baseline is maintained. The National Marine Fisheries Service, as the lead
agency, would need to incorporate such a provision into Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal
Commission, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to
incorporate the provision into the City's Regional General Permit and into any
individual property owner's dredging or dock construction permit that qualifies
under future applications. The establishment of a baseline for eelgrass meadows
will serve to protect their important ecological function while allowing the periodic
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -60
dredging that is essential to protect the Newport Harbor's value as a commercial
and recreational resource. The eelgrass mitigation program is conceptual in
nature and will need further review and agency approval.
Policies:
4.2.5 -1. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent
possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and
in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport
Harbor where feasible.
4.2.5 -2. Continue to cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass
restoration sites.
4.2.5 -3. Conduct studies to establish an eelgrass acreage baseline for
Newport Harbor based on the distribution, density, and productivity,
necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function.
4.2.5 -4. Cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service to incorporate
a provision into the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
that would allow exemptions to mitigation requirements for harbor
maintenance projects for provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is
maintained.
4.2.5 -5. Cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal
Commission, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board to incorporate the eelgrass acreage baseline exemption
provision into the City's Regional General Permit and into any
individual property owner's dredging or dock construction permit that
qualifies under future applications.
4.2.5 -6. Perform periodic surveys of the distribution of eelgrass in Newport
Bay in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Services to
insure that the eelgrass baseline is maintained.
4.2.5 -7. Cooperate with resource agencies to conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of biological, recreational, commercial and aquatic
resources of Newport Harbor and to develop a Harbor Area
Management Plan (HAMP) that will maintain all of the intended
beneficial uses of the harbor.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -61
4.3 Water Quality
Coastal Act policies related to water quality that are relevant to Newport Beach include the
following:
30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be
given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be
carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy
populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long -term commercial, recreational, scientific, and
educational purposes.
30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes
appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be
maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water
discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial
interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas
that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
30232. Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be
provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup
facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur
Newport Beach's greatest resources are
its coastline and bay. They have drawn
people here since prehistoric times, were
the preeminent factor in the community's
founding and development, and continue
to provide the community with
employment, recreation, natural habitat,
and a beautiful physical setting. With
these great gifts come great
responsibilities for the protection and
enhancement of these resources.
Newport Beach has traditionally cared
greatly about the quality of the water in
Newport Bay and along the ocean
shoreline and has embarked on a number of
quality.
Shoreline near Balboa Pier
4.3.1 TMDLs
programs to improve the water
Newport Bay receives urban runoff from the Newport Bay watershed, an area that
includes unincorporated County territory and areas within the cities of Costa Mesa,
Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Irvine, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, and
Tustin. The primary tributaries to Newport Bay are the Santa Ana /Delhi Channel
(draining the cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana), San Diego Creek (draining the
cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Beach, Orange,
and Tustin), and Big Canyon Creek (draining Newport Beach).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-62
Newport Bay is designated as "water quality- limited" for four impairments under
the Federal Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List, meaning that it is "not
reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards" due to these
impairments without additional regulation. As a water quality - limited body, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( "Regional
Board ") and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( "U.S. EPA ") have
developed total maximum daily loads ( "TMDLs ") for the following substances:
sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants. The Board included these
TMDLs in the Regional Board's Basin Plan for the region.
Sediment. Adopted on October 9, 1998, the Sediment TMDL requires local
partners (stakeholders in the watershed) to survey the Bay regularly and to reduce
annual sediment coming into the Bay from 250,000 cubic yards to 125,000 cubic
yards (a 50% reduction) by 2008. The TMDL's goal is to reduce dredging
frequency in Upper Newport Bay to once every 20 years. Part of the TMDL
includes a proposed Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers -led ecosystem restoration project that attempts to
restore the Upper Bay to its optimal habitat.
Nutrients. Approved by U.S. EPA on April 16, 1999, the Nutrient TMDL limits
nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the Bay. The Nutrient TMDL attempts to
reduce the annual loading of nitrogen by 50% -- from 1,400 pounds per day today
to approximately 850 to 802 pounds per day at San Diego Creek — by 2012.
Phosphorus loading must fall from 86,912 pounds per year in 2002 to 62,080
pounds by 2007.
Fecal Coliform. Approved in December 1999, the Fecal Coliform TMDL attempts
to reduce the amount of fecal coliform inputs to the Bay enough to make the Bay
meet water contact recreation (REC1) standards (swimming, wading, surfing) by
2014 and shellfish harvesting (SHEL) standards (where waters support shellfish
acceptable for human consumption) by 2020.
Toxic Pollutants. Adopted by U.S. EPA on June 14, 2002, the Toxic Pollutants
TMDL addresses Bay inputs like heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead, cadmium,
zinc) and priority organics like (endosulfan, DDT, Chlordane, PCBs, Toxaphene,
diazinon, chlorpyriphos, more). It may lead to the reduction or elimination of
pesticide use by residents, businesses, and municipal services in the watershed.
Some controls will be placed on heavy metals. The Toxic Pollutants TMDL also
addresses existing toxic deposits in sediments in Rhine Channel and other areas
in the Lower Bay.
To implement the obligations of the TMDLs and to partner on related water quality
issues, Newport Beach, the Regional Board, the California Department of Fish and
Game, the County of Orange, and the other cities in the Newport Bay watershed
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -63
have established the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee as advised by
the Watershed Management Committee (WEC and WMC).
The WMC typically meets quarterly to comply with the TMDLs established by the
Regional Board. Generally, all the TMDLs established by the Regional Board
require that watershed- based solutions be developed by the watershed
stakeholders, and then the stakeholders jointly fund and implement these projects
throughout the watershed.
Policies:
4.3.1 -1. Continue to develop and implement the TMDLs established by the
Regional Board and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed
Executive Committee (WEC).
4.3.1 -2. Secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration
Project.
4.3.1 -3. Establish and protect a long -term funding source for the regular
dredging of Upper Newport Bay and dredging of the Lower Newport
Bay so that the City and its watershed partners achieve the goals
and directives of the Sediment and Nutrient TMDLs adopted for
Newport Bay.
4.3.1 -4. Preserve, or where feasible, restore natural hydrologic conditions
such that downstream erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface
flow, and groundwater recharge function near natural equilibrium
states.
4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive
soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to
prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the
TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay.
4.3.1 -6. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on
graded or disturbed areas.
4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land
disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and-
fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes,
unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize
disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native
vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features
important for preventing erosion or sedimentation.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -64
4.3.1 -8. Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products,
or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any
development or transportation of such materials. Effective
containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided
for accidental spills that do occur.
4.3.2 NPDES
The City of Newport Beach operates a
municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4). The City's MS4 is permitted by
the Regional Board under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
( NPDES). The City's MS4 permit is
extensive in its obligation to keep
waterways clean by reducing or
eliminating contaminants from stormwater
and dry- weather runoff. MS4 permits
require an aggressive Water Quality
Ordinance (Ord. 97 -26), specific
Catch basin screens and filters municipal practices to maintain city
facilities like the MS4, and the use of
"best management practices" (BMPs) in many residential, commercial, and
development- related activities to further cut runoff. MS4 permits also require local
agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to let more people
know about what they can do at home and at work to protect water quality.
Policies:
4.3.2 -1. Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize
the introduction of pollutants into coastal waters, as well as the
generation and impacts of dry weather and polluted runoff.
4.3.2 -2. Require that development not result in the degradation of coastal
waters (including the ocean, estuaries and lakes) caused by changes
to the hydrologic landscape.
4.3.2 -3. Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction and
other planning efforts with the Regional Board, the County of
Orange, and upstream cities.
4.3.2 -4. Continue to update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality
Ordinance consistent with the MS4 Permit.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -65
4.3.2 -6. Develop and maintain a water quality checklist to be used in the
permit review process to assess potential water quality impacts.
4.3.2 -6. Implement and improve upon best management practices (BMPs) for
residences, businesses, new development and significant
redevelopment, and City operations.
4.3.2 -7. Incorporate BMPs into the project design in the following
progression:
• Site Design BMPs.
■ Source Control BMPs.
■ Treatment Control BMPs.
Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments.
When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are
not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the LCP or
Coastal Act, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along
with site design and source control measures.
4.3.2 -8. To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be retained on
private property to prevent the transport of bacteria, pesticides,
fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons,
brake dust, tire residue, and other pollutants into recreational waters.
4.3.2 -9. To the maximum extent practicable, limit the use of curb drains to
avoid conveying runoff directly to the City's street drainage system
without the benefit of absorption by permeable surfaces and natural
treatments such as landscaped areas and planters.
4.3.2 -10. Provide storm drain stenciling and signage for new storm drain
construction in order to discourage dumping into drains.
4.3.2 -11. Require new development to minimize the creation of and increases
in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious
areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to
increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible.
4.3.2 -12. Require development to protect the absorption, purification, and
retention functions of natural drainage systems that exist on the site,
to the maximum extent practicable. Where feasible, design drainage
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -66
and project plans to complement and utilize existing drainage
patterns and systems, conveying drainage from the developed area
of the site in a non - erosive manner. Disturbed or degraded natural
drainage systems should be restored, where feasible.
4.3.2 -13. Site development on the most suitable portion of the site and design
to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive
site resources by providing for the following:
A. Protecting areas that provide important water quality benefits,
areas necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota and /or
that are susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;
B. Analyzing the natural resources and hazardous constraints of
planning areas and individual development sites to determine
locations most suitable for development;
C. Preserving and protecting riparian corridors, wetlands, and
bufferzones;
D. Minimizing disturbance of natural areas, including vegetation,
significant trees, native vegetation, and root structures;
E. Ensuring adequate setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and other
environmentally sensitive habitat areas;
F. Promoting clustering of development on the most suitable
portions of a site by taking into account geologic constraints,
sensitive resources, and natural drainage features
G. Utilizing design features that meet water quality goals
established in site design policies.
4.3.2 -14. Whenever possible, divert runoff through planted areas or sumps
that recharge the groundwater dry wells and use the natural filtration
properties of the earth to prevent the transport of harmful materials
directly into receiving waters.
4.3.2 -15. Where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards,
include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration.
4.3.2 -16. Require structural BMPs to be inspected, cleaned, and repaired as
necessary to ensure proper functioning for the life of the
development. Condition coastal development permits to require
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -67
ongoing application and maintenance as is necessary for effective
operation of all BMPs (including site design, source control, and
treatment control).
4.3.2 -17. Utilize permeable surfaces that permit the percolation of urban runoff
in non - sidewalk areas within the City's parkway areas, to the
maximum extent practicable.
4.3.2 -18. Condition coastal development permits to require the City, property
owners, or homeowners associations, as applicable, to sweep
permitted parking lots and public and private streets frequently to
remove debris and contaminated residue.
4.3.2 -19. Require parking lots and vehicle traffic areas to incorporate BMPs
designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oils and grease, car battery
acid, coolant, gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants to
receiving waters.
4.3.2 -20. Require commercial development to incorporate BMPs designed to
prevent or minimize the runoff of pollutants from structures,
landscaping, parking areas, loading and unloading dock areas, repair
and maintenance bays, and vehicle /equipment wash areas.
4.3.2 -21. Require service stations, car washes and vehicle repair facilities to
incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oil and
grease, solvents, car battery acid, coolant, gasoline, and other
pollutants to stormwater system from areas including fueling areas,
repair and maintenance bays, vehicle /equipment wash areas, and
loading /unloading dock areas.
4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs
designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal
waters.
4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to
the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small
storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the
concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and
post- construction from the property.
4.3.2 -24. To further reduce runoff, direct and encourage water conservation
via the use of weather- and moisture -based irrigation controls, tiered
water consumption rates, and native or drought - tolerant plantings in
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-68
residential, commercial, and municipal properties to the maximum
extent practicable.
4.3.2 -25. Effectively communicate water quality education to residents and
businesses, including the development of a water quality testing lab
and educational exhibits at the Back Bay Science Center on
Shellmaker Island.
4.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Overflows
The City of Newport Beach owns and
operates a wastewater collection
system that collects residential and
commercial wastewater and transports
it, using a system of 20 pump stations,
for treatment by the Orange County
Sanitation District. Residences and
businesses -- when permitted by the
City -- hook up private lateral lines to
the City's collection lines. Private and
public lines and the City's pump stations
have the potential to cause sanitary
sewer overflows (SSOs).
Main Channel
SSOs lead to several beach closures in and around Newport Beach each year.
State law (AB 411, Wayne) requires local health officials to close receiving waters
to recreational uses when health officials know of or suspect that an SSO could
reach recreational waters. As such, SSOs in Newport Beach and in inland cities
can cause closures to Newport Beach's waters.
Most SSOs in the area are caused by line blockages. The primary causes of line
blockages are grease and root clogs. Newport Beach has adopted regulations for
the disposal of grease and other insoluble waste discharges from commercial food
preparation facilities to prevent blockages of the sewer system and is investigating
alternative grease control methods.
As a part of the City's Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), the City's Utilities
Department follows a defined Sewer Master Plan to replace or reline older
wastewater lines. Newport Beach also uses remote cameras in sewer lines to
look for pipe cracks, root intrusion, and grease buildup to assist in prioritizing the
line replacement program.
Maintenance failures of plumbing associated with pump stations are another
leading cause of SSOs. Newport Beach's Sewer Master Plan includes upgrades
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -69
of its pump stations, including replacing pump stations with gravity systems where
possible. Upgraded pump stations also include spill - warning systems with multiple
communication methods (radio, telephone, pager, and direct line to the City's
Utilities yard) to inform Utilities staff of any malfunction.
Public education plays an important role in preventing and controlling SSOs.
Through water billing and other means, the City reminds the public -- and
especially restaurants -- to clean sewer laterals often, maintain private grease
control systems, keep roots under control, and to immediately report SSOs.
Policies:
4.3.3 -1. Develop and implement sewer system management plans to replace
or reline older wastewater lines and upgrade pump stations.
4.3.3 -2. Conduct additional public education reminding property owners and
food preparation facilities to clean sewer laterals often, maintain
private grease control systems, keep roots under control, and to
immediately report SSOs.
4.3.3 -3. Require waste discharge permits with all food preparation facilities
that produce grease and require such permits to include:
• Agreements to follow appropriate BMPs;
■ Maximum grease intrusion levels;
• Maintenance /posting of appropriate educational material;
• Maintenance log for laterals (at least quarterly);
• Maintenance of a log for any grease control device or vat;
• Funding for regular compliance inspections;
• Acknowledgement of City's ability to fine for non - compliance.
4.3.3 -4. Monitor food preparation facilities via waste discharge permits and
monitor spill reduction progress.
4.3.3 -3. Participate with other sewer collection and treatment agencies to
investigate altematives to grease interceptors.
4.3.3 -6. Continue to renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new
plumbing according to most recent standards.
4.3.3 -7. Comply with the Regional Board's Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of a sewage
collection system.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -70
4.4 Scenic and Visual Resources
Coastal Act policies related to scenic and visual resources that are relevant to Newport Beach
include the following:
30251. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.
Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to
minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where
feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as
those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and
Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
4.4.1 Coastal Views
Newport Beach is located in a unique physical setting that provides a variety of
spectacular coastal views, including those of the open waters of the ocean and
bay, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. The
City has historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to
these scenic and visual resources and has developed a system of public parks,
piers, trails, and viewing areas. Coastal views are also provided from a number of
streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in West Newport, Balboa
Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets
provide view corridors to the ocean and bay.
'x
Little Corona
f. •..
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -71
Policies:
4.4.1 -1. 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.
4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development,
including landscaping, so as to
minimize impacts to public coastal
views.
4.4.1 -3. Design and site new development to
minimize alterations to significant
natural landforms, including bluffs,
cliffs and canyons.
Oceanhunt Boardwalk at 2e Street Beach
4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view
easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to
restore public coastal views in developed areas.
4.4.1 -5. Where feasible, require new development to restore and enhance
the visual quality in visually degraded areas.
4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments:
• Backbay Drive.
• Balboa Island Bridge.
• Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive.
• Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay.
• Coast Highway /Santa Ana River Bridge.
• Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange.
• Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive.
• Coast Highway /Newport Bay Bridge.
• Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive.
• Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Backbay Drive.
• Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive.
• Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive /University Drive to State
Route 73.
• Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park.
• Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive.
• Lido Island Bridge.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -72
• Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westwinster Avenue to
Via Lido Drive.
• Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive ENV to Farallon
Drive /Granville Drive.
• Ocean Boulevard.
• State Route 73 from Bayview Way to University Drive.
• Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway.
• University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana — Delhi
Channel,
4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the
edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public
streets, to frame and accent public coastal views.
4.4.1 -8. Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear
views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway
and Newport Boulevard rights -of -way in accordance with the
following principles, as appropriate:
• Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors
to the Harbor.
• Modulation of building volume and masses.
• Variation of building heights.
• Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see- through"
elements in addition to the defined open corridor.
• Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other
nonstructural elements that block views and access to the
Harbor.
• Prevention of the appearance of the public right -of -way being
walled off from the Harbor.
• Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on
adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors.
• Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view
corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would
have been achieved independently.
• A site - specific analysis shall be conducted for new development
to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of
the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which
shall be subject to approval in the coastal development plan
review process.
4.4.1 -9. Design and maintain parkway and median landscape improvements
in public rights -of -way so as not to block public coastal views at
maturity.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -73
4.4.1 -10. Where feasible, provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing
areas adjacent to public coastal view corridors.
4.4.1 -11. Restrict development on sandy beach areas to those structures
directly supportive of visitor - serving and recreational uses, such as
lifeguard towers, recreational equipment, restrooms, and showers.
Design and site such structures to minimize impacts to public coastal
views.
4.4.2 Bulk and Height Limitation
Concern over the intensity of
development around Lower
Newport Bay led to the adoption
of a series of ordinances in the
early 1970s that established more
restrictive height and bulk
development standards around
the bay. The intent was to
regulate the visual and physical
mass of structures consistent with
the unique character and visual
scale of Newport Beach. As a
result, new development within
the Shoreline Height Limitation
Homes on the Balboa Peninsula Zone is limited to a height of 35
feet. Residential development is
limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and non - residential development is limited to a
height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights
up to 50 feet are permitted within the planned community districts. There are also
two properties in the coastal zone that are within the High Rise Height Limitation
Zone, which are permitted heights up to 375 feet. The first is the site of Newport
Beach Marriott Hotel in Newport Center; the other is an undeveloped office site
northeast of the Jamboree Road /State Route 73 interchange.
Floor areas are strictly limited citywide. In the coastal zone, residential
development is limited to floor areas ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 times the buildable
area of the parcel (the land minus required setback yards), which typically
translates to actual floor area ratios of 0.95 to 1.35. Nonresidential development
floor area ratios range from 0.30 to 1.25.
Policies:
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -74
4.4.2 -1. Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height
Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3.
4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures
consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport
Beach.
4.4.2 -3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public
views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and
building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October
13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view
opportunities.
4.4.2 -4. Prohibit projections associated with new development to exceed the
top of curb on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Exceptions for
minor projections may be granted for chimneys and vents provided
the height of such projections is limited to the minimum height
necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -75
4.4.3 Natural Landform Protection
Newport Beach coastal zone contains a number of distinctive topographic
features. The central and northwestern portions of the City are situated on a
broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills, commonly
known as Newport Mesa. This upland has been deeply dissected by stream
erosion, resulting in moderate to steep bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay
estuary, one of the most striking and biologically diverse natural features in
Orange County. The nearly flat - topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above
mean sea level at the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area,
to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff
areas.
Along the southwestern margin of the City, sediments flowing from the Santa Ana
River and San Diego Creek, the two major drainage courses that transect the
mesa, have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and
West Newport. These lowland areas were significantly modified during the last
century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands.
Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was once the site of
extensive low sand dunes.
In the southern part
of the City, the San
Joaquin Hills rise
abruptly from the
sea, separated from
the present shoreline
by a relatively flat,
narrow shelf.
Originally formed by
wave abrasion, this
platform (also called
a terrace) is now
elevated well above
the water and is
bounded by steep
bluffs along the Geomorphic map of Newport Beach
shoreline. The
coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet
above sea level.
The bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms are an
important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and are to be
protected as a resource of public importance.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -76
Coastal Bluffs
Coastal bluffs are formed by a
rapid uplift of the shore relative to
sea level. Coastal bluffs are
dynamic, evolving landforms.
Coastal bluffs can be impacted by
processes at both the bottom and
top of the cliffs. Pounding by
waves during high tide and storm
surges can undercut the base and
lead to eventual collapse of the
bluff. Bluffs are also shaped by
wind, surface runoff, and ground
water erosion (see Sections 2.8.3,
2.8.5, and 2.8.6).
Coastal bluffs are a prominent Upper Newport Bay coastal bluffs
landform in Newport Beach. There
are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs,
and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper
Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the Banning
Ranch property. Finally, there are coastal bluffs surrounding Lower Newport Bay.
These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover
Drive and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the
open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated
from the shoreline. Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and
environmental resources and are to be protected.
Most of the coastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the
years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space.
Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay
have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or
dedicated as open space as part of the Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport,
Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing planned residential
developments. In other areas, including Dover Shores, Corona del Mar,
Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional
residential subdivisions. Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot
basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or
visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping.
Development restrictions, including setbacks, must be established to ensure
geologic stability while addressing current patterns of development. Where the
bluff is subject to marine erosion, development on bluff top lots must be set back
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -77
at least 25 feet from the bluff edge. On bluff top lots where the bluff is not subject
to marine erosion, the setback from the bluff edge should be based on the
predominant line of existing development along the bluff edge in each
neighborhood. These bluff edge setbacks may be increased to maintain sufficient
distance to ensure stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, and
to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure
(75 years).
Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited, with exceptions for certain
public improvements or private improvements determined to be consistent with the
predominant line of development.
Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is
extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on
Avocado Avenue, Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The
initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of
policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms.
Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be
consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from
the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize
further alteration.
The bluffs along Bayside Drive were at one time exposed to the Lower Newport
Bay. However, these bluffs separated from the shoreline when abutting tidelands
were filled and reclaimed in the 1920s and later developed into the communities of
Promontory Bay, Beacon Bay, and Bayside. Later development of Irvine Terrace
and Promontory Point cut and filled these bluffs. Development in these areas is
subject to setbacks established for bluffs not subject to marine erosion.
Little Corona sea cave and bluffs
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -78
Coastal Canyons
There are three significant canyons in the coastal
zone, Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and Morning
Canyon. The steep slopes and vegetation of
these canyons are distinctive features on the
shoreline of the ocean and bay. Big Canyon is
protected as a nature park. However, Buck Gully
and Morning Canyon are under private ownership
and there is extensive residential development on
the slopes of both canyons. Therefore, any effort
to protect and enhance the visual quality of these
canyons will require the cooperation of the
property owners.
Other Landforms
Some of the edges of Newport Mesa and the San
Joaquin Hills are located a considerable distance Buck Gully development
from the shoreline, but are still highly visible from
public view points, roadways, or the water. These areas have moderate to steep
slopes, accentuated in places by gullies, ravines, and rock outcroppings. In order
to protect the overall visual quality of the coastal zone, new development in these
areas need to be sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural land
forms and to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.
Policies:
4.4.3 -1. Require new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open
space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the
coastal bluff adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or
minimize visual impacts.
4.4.3 -2. Maintain approved bluff edge setbacks for the coastal bluffs within
the planned communities of Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport,
Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing to ensure the
preservation of scenic resources and geologic stability.
4.4.3 -3. Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff subject to
marine erosion to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of
existing development in the subject area, but not less than 25 feet
from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal
structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and
pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -79
safety and stability of the development.
4.4.34. On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory
structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require
structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant
line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10
feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be
removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion,
instability or other hazards.
4.4.3 -5. Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject
to marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance
with the predominant line of existing development in the subject
area. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and
major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The
setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and
stability of the development.
4.4.3 -6. On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new accessory
structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require
structural foundations, to be set back from the bluff edge in
accordance with the predominant line of existing accessory
development. Require accessory structures to be removed or
relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other
hazards.
4.4.3 -7. Require all new development located on a bluff top to be setback
from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure stability, ensure
that it will not be endangered by erosion, and to avoid the need for
protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75
years). Such setbacks must take into consideration expected long-
term bluff retreat over the next 75 years, as well as slope stability.
To assure stability, the development must maintain a minimum factor
of safety of 1.5 against landsliding for the economic life of the
structure.
4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except 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 or public improvements
providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing
for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible
alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize
alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -80
bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to
the maximum extent feasible.
4.4.3 -9. 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 public
coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both
principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall
be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the
development.
4.4.3 -10. The coastal bluffs along Bayside Drive that have been cut and filled
by the Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point developments are no
longer subject to marine erosion. New development on these bluffs
is subject to the setback restrictions established for bluff top
development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion.
4.4.3 -11. Require applications for new development to include slope stability
analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified
Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.
4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize
alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as:
A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except
when an alternative location is more protective of coastal
resources.
B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum
extent feasible.
C. Clustering building sites.
D. Shared use of driveways.
E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the
site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be
compatible with the slopes and building design.
F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or
cantilever designs.
G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -81
dwelling unit.
H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours
of the site.
4.4.3 -13. Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to
incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native
or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal
bluff recession.
4.4.3 -14. Require swimming pools located on bluff properties to incorporate
leak prevention and detection measures.
4.4.3 -15. Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native
vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal
resources.
4.4.3 -16. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to minimize
impacts to coastal bluffs.
4.4.3 -17. Identify and remove all unauthorized structures, including protective
devices, fences, and stairways, which encroach into coastal bluffs.
4.4.3 -18. Establish canyon development setbacks based on the predominant
line of existing development for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Do
not permit development to extend beyond the predominant line of
existing development by establishing a development stringline where
a line is drawn between nearest adjacent corners of existing
structures on either side of the subject property. Establish
development stringlines for principle structures and accessory
improvements.
Note: See Sections 2.8.6 and 2.87 for technical submittal requirements on
beach, bluff and canyon properties.
Corona del Mar coastal bluffs
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -82
4.4.4 Signs and Utilities
The City has adopted special sign
regulations for the Mariner's Mile
commercial district and for the Balboa
Peninsula. These sign regulations
include limitations on freestanding and
roof signs, which have the greatest
potential to impact coastal scenic and
visual resources.
In some of the older neighborhoods,
electrical, telephone, cable television,
and other utility lines are still located
above ground. The City requires overhead utilities were placed underground in Balboa Village
utilities to be placed underground in all
new developments and has ongoing programs to remove and underground
overhead utilities through the establishment of underground utility districts.
Policies:
4.4.4 -1. Design and site signs, utilities, and antennas to minimize visual
impacts to coastal resources.
4.4.4 -2. Continue to implement the special sign regulations in Mariner's Mile
and on the Balboa Peninsula.
4.4.4 -3. Update sign regulations for the West Newport, Marine Avenue, and
Corona del Mar commercial areas.
4.4.4 -4. Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal
nonconforming signs.
4.4.4 -5. Prohibit new billboards and roof top signs and regulate the bulk and
height of other freestanding signs that affect public coastal views.
Heritage signs are not subject to this restriction.
4.4.4 -6. Continue to require new development to underground utilities.
4.4.4 -7. Continue programs to remove and underground overhead utilities.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -83
4.5 Paleontological Cultural Resources
Coastal Act pohcie§ relatedyto paleontologrcal, archaeological, and;hlstorrcal:Resources:
chat are relevant to;Newport';Beach mclude the following .
!30744 Where development would adversely impact archaeological or palegntologicaVresources a4:identi0ed by tfte
state Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measuies shall ber8gwred._
4.5.1 Paleontological and Archaeological Resources
Orange County's geologic history began 175 - 145 million years ago, in the Middle
to Late Jurassic Period. The oldest rocks in Orange County are located in the
central Santa Ana Mountains and contain fossils such as radiolarians, ammonites
and bivalves. These types of rocks and fossils indicate that this area was under
the ocean. Therefore, for most of its geologic history, Orange County was
underwater.
During the Miocene Epoch (26 — 7 million years ago) tectonic forces produced
mountain uplifts, initiated movement on the nascent San Andreas fault system,
and formed numerous coastal marine basins, including the Los Angeles Basin, of
which most of Orange County is a part. Orange County became a shallow bay as
the sea retreated. Miocene fossils are from both marine and land organisms, as
the area was a shallow sea surrounded by jungles and savannas.
Tectonic forces began to uplift the land during the Pliocene (7 - 2.5 million years
ago). The sea began to slowly recede from the coast. Each successive shoreline
is represented today by a marine terrace and can be seen in Corona del Mar
today. Three marine terraces can be seen north of Corona del Mar by driving
toward the beach on MacArthur Boulevard. Sandstone deposited in the Newport
Beach area in the late Pliocene contains a wealth of marine mammals, sea birds
and a variety of seashells.
The seas continued to regress during the cooler Pleistocene (2.5 million — 15,000
years ago), and tectonic forces continued to uplift the land. Although the
Pleistocene Epoch is called the "Ice Age," glacial ice never reached Southern
California. A heavily vegetated, marshy area extended inland beyond the
shoreline, and a great variety of vertebrate Ice Age animals lived in the area.
Fossils of Ice Age horses, elephants, bison, antelopes and Dire wolves have been
found at sites near the Castaways.
The first generally accepted period of human occupation of the Southern California
began around the end of the Pleistocene, about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
Some of the evidence of the earliest human occupation in Orange County was
found at archaeological sites around the Upper Newport Bay.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -84
Tongva steatite bowl recovered from a development site
Policies:
These and other archaeological sites
in Newport Beach present evidence
that highly mobile and resourceful
people lived here as far back as 9,500
years ago. A village site excavated in
Newporter North was occupied at
various times over 5,500 years.
Archaeological excavations indicate
that the earliest people followed the
seasonal migration of animals and
collected a wide variety of wild plant
resources. Later inhabitants were
more sedentary, hunting sea
mammals, small and large terrestrial
mammals, fish, bird, and shellfish.
Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological
and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and
minimize impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the resource is
not feasible, require an in situ or site - capping preservation plan or a
recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development.
4.5.1 -2. Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading
and /or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or
paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations
uncover paleontological /archaeological resources, require the
paleontologist/archeologist monitor to suspend all development
activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be
made as to the significance of the paleontological / archaeological
resources. If resources are determined to be significant, require
submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may
range from in -situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation.
Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to
cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to,
project redesign, in situ preservation /capping, and placing cultural
resource areas in open space.
4.5.1 -3. Notify cultural organizations, including Native American
organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to
adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives
of such groups to monitor grading and /or excavation of development
sites.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -85
4.5.1 -4. Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require
new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or
archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution
with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever
possible.
4.5.1 -5. Where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological
resources, require the submittal of an archeological /cultural
resources monitoring plan that identifies monitoring methods and
describes the procedures for selecting archeological and Native
American monitors and procedures that will be followed if additional
or unexpected archeological /cultural resources are encountered
during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not
limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction
activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to
uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the
discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options
to allow for significance testing, additional investigation and
mitigation.
4.5.1 -6. Continue to protect Upper Newport Bay cliff faces to serve as a
reference section for micropaleontological studies.
4.5.2 Historical Resources
Newport Beach has a number of
buildings and sites in the coastal
zone that are representative of
the history of the community and
the region. Some of these
historical resources have been
recognized as being of statewide
or national importance. There
are four properties in Newport
Beach that are listed as
California Historical Landmarks:
Early photograph of the Balboa Pavilion
■ Old Landing (No. 198). Established by Captain Dunnells in the
1870's, it was the site of the first shipping business in Newport Bay.
■ Site Of First Water -To -Water Flight (No. 775). Commemorates the
May 10, 1912 flight of Glenn L. Martin from the waters of the Pacific
Ocean at Balboa to Catalina Island, the first water -to -water flight.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -86
■ McFadden Wharf (No. 794). The site of the original wharf built in 1888
by the McFadden brothers.
■ Balboa Pavilion (No. 959). Built in 1905, it is one of California's last
surviving examples of the great waterfront recreational pavilions from
the turn of the century.
There are also three properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places:
■ Balboa Inn. Built in 1929, the Balboa Inn is representative of Spanish
Colonial Revival architecture and beachfront tourist development.
■ Balboa Pavilion. Built in 1905, the Balboa Pavilion is one of
California's last surviving examples of the great waterfront recreational
pavilions from the turn of the century.
■ Lovell Beach House. Built in 1926, the Lovell Beach House was
designed by Rudolf Schindler and is considered the first pure
International Style house built in America.
Four additional properties are also listed as historic or potentially historic in the
California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by
the Office of Historic Preservation:
• B.K. Stone Building —one of the oldest commercial structures in Newport
Beach.
• Balboa Island Firehouse No. 4 —early police and fire station for the Balboa
Peninsula.
■ Bank of Balboa/Bank of America —Bank of Balboa, Bank of America,
provided services from 1928 to 1984 (now demolished).
■ Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.
The City of Newport Beach has also listed seven properties in the Newport Beach
Register of Historical Property in recognition of their local historical or architectural
significance. In addition to the Balboa Pavilion and the Balboa Inn, the Newport
Beach Register of Historical Property includes:
• Rendezvous Ballroom Site. Destroyed by fire in 1966, the Rendezvous
Ballroom was a popular Balboa dance hall that featured numerous famous
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -87
Big Bands of the 1930's and 1940's.
Wilma's Patio (formally Pepper's Restaurant). Located on Balboa Island,
the exposed structural components of Pepper's Restaurant are timbers
used in the original Balboa Island Bridge and McFadden Wharf.
Balboa Theater. Built in 1928, the Balboa Theater is a former vaudeville
theater that one time housed an infamous speakeasy during Prohibition.
Balboa Saloon, The 1924 building is representative of Newport's nautical
history and Main Street commercial masonry style.
Dory Fishing Fleet
The Dory Fishing Fleet is located adjacent to Newport Pier. The fleet and open -air
fish market has operated there since its founding by a Portuguese fisherman in
1891. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a historical landmark designated by
the Newport Beach Historical Society. It is a general policy of the City that an area
immediately west of the Newport Pier be reserved for the Newport Dory Fishing
Fleet.
Policies:
4.5.2 -1. Maintain and periodically update the Newport Beach Register of
Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments
having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach
and require photo documentation of inventoried historic structures
prior to demolition.
4.5.2 -2. Provide incentives, such as granting reductions or waivers of
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
Lt i]
applications fees, permit fees, and/or any liens placed by the City to
properties listed in the National or State Register or the Newport
Beach Register of Historical Property in exchange for preservation
easements.
4.5.2 -3. Continue to allow the Dory Fishing Fleet to be launched and stored
and to sell fish on the public beach adjacent to Newport Pier within
reasonable limits to protect the historical character of the fleet, the
coastal access and resources, and the safety of beach users in the
vicinity.
4.6 Environmental Review
The protection of coastal resources and
protection from coastal hazards
requires that applications for new
development undergo appropriate
environmental review. In most cases,
the City conducts this review through
implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requires the state to review
the environmental impacts of projects
that require state or local government
Coastal bluff revegetation at Inspiration Point approval. CEQA requires appropriate
mitigation of projects that contain
significant environmental impacts.
Specifically, CEQA states that agencies must identify potential environmental
impacts, alter projects to avoid such impacts where feasible, seek alternatives that
will minimize unavoidable impacts, and require mitigation for any unavoidable
impacts that are necessary. CEQA mandates that the responsible agencies
consider a reasonable range of project alternatives that offer substantial
environmental advantages over the project proposal. CEQA adds that the agency
responsible for the project's approval must deny approval if there would be
"significant adverse effects" when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures could substantially lessen such effects.
To ensure consistency with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Land
Use Plan, applications for new development subject to coastal development permit
requirements will be reviewed by qualified City staff, contracted
employee /consultant and /or advisory committee in accordance with the CEQA
requirements, as well as those contained in the Local Coastal Program.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -89
Policies:
4.6 -1. Review all new development subject to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and coastal development permit requirements in accordance with
the principles, objectives, and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Local Coastal Program, and any environmental review
guidelines adopted by the City.
4.6 -2. Integrate CEQA procedures into the review procedures for new
development within the coastal zone.
4.6 -3. Require a qualified City staff member, advisory committee designated by
the City, or consultant approved by and under the supervision of the City, to
review all environmental review documents submitted as part of an
application for new development and provide recommendations to the
appropriate decision - making official or body.
4.6-4. Require the City staff member(s) and/or contracted employee(s)
responsible for reviewing site specific surveys and analyses to have
technical expertise in biological resources, as appropriate for the resource
issues of concern (e.g. marine /coastal, wetland /riparian protection and
restoration, upland habitats and connectivity) and be knowledgeable about
the City of Newport Beach,
4.6 -5. Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or
other sensitive resources, require the City staff member(s) and /or
contracted employee(s) to consider the individual and cumulative impacts of
the development, define the least environmentally damaging alternative,
and recommend modifications or mitigation measures to avoid or minimize
impacts. The City may impose a fee on applicants to recover the cost of
review of a proposed project when required by this policy.
4.6 -6. Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or
other sensitive resources, require the City staff member(s) and /or
contracted employee(s) to include the following in any recommendations of
approval: an identification of the preferred project alternative, required
modifications, or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance
with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The decision making body (Planning
Director, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall make findings relative
to the project's conformance to the recommendations of the City staff
member(s) and /or contracted employee(s).
4.6 -7. Require City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to make a
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -90
recommendation to the decision making body as to whether an area
constitutes an ESHA, and if recommended as an ESHA, then establish the
boundaries thereof and appropriate buffers.
4.6 -8. Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other resource
management agencies, as applicable, in the review of development
applications in order to ensure that impacts to ESHA and marine resources,
including rare, threatened, or endangered species, are avoided or
minimized such that ESHA is not significantly degraded, habitat values are
not significantly disrupted, and the biological productivity and quality of
coastal waters is preserved.
4.6 -9. Require applications for new development, where applicable, to include a
geologic /soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards
affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and
contains statements that the project site is suitable for the proposed
development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard for
its economic life. For development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing
Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall include slope stability analyses and
estimates of the long -term average bluff retreat rate over the expected life
of the development. Reports are to be signed by an appropriately licensed
professional and subject to review and approval by qualified city staff
member(s) and /or contracted employee(s).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4 -91
City of Newport Beach, California
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
4-92
A
INORTH
Omd-
July/2009
Environmental
Study Areas (ESAs)
Map 4-1
LEGEND
ESA Location Key
Semeniuk Slough
North Star Beach
West Bay
UNBMPIDe Anna
Bayside Marsh Peninsula
San Diego creek
East Bluff Remnant
Mouth of Big Canyon
Newporter North
Buck Gully
Morning Canyon
Newport Beach Marine
Conservation Area
Castaways
di
Newport Harbor
Entrance Channel
Kelp Bed
Coastal Zone Boundary
City Boundary
A
INORTH
Omd-
July/2009
i /•' Coastal Views
Map 4 -3
i
tM1faP1 .1 3)
' LEGEND
r
�\ ]•\ ♦ Public View Point
ti Coastal View Road
/ j ='•.: Coastal Zone Boundary
City Boundary
Shoreline Height
�'� • I \` j Limitation Zone
I " —. i -i. � ;. -:: Proposed Park
/•'`� — " —i --- I— _ —_ —_ /` //1� K Public Beach or Park
j
Ali k&p' > / 1
man
�.d
City of Newport Beach, California (West Newport Area) -
Local Coastal Program NOW
-. -Ar- Coastal Land Use Plan 4 yn =M.
December /2005
MgP4]LCPOSCOnaIaNbWNN .mW
v,., I
�ded do goeag ollgnd
Ted pesododd 4?
auoZ uopellwll
lg61OH aullaJOgg h,
/uepunog h80 -.,,
Aiepunog auoZ lelseoo "h,;
PEON ma!A lelseoo ti
iulod maiA ollgnd y
4N3031
(e 1. z dew)
£-b deW
SMOIA le;seo'O
�.,
k
;
12 1 :!
1
j
1
I
..
199aJ oadro mv; �
oxw a n�miaweo�sodo� sooznsn ny
66-a ueld ash pun mseoo
McJ6oJd le ;seOg leoo-j
(Feg UodmGN iaddn) eiwojlieo 'goeag uodenaN Jo AIn
vS Awn
.I
'••..T+e� %� ••'
a
City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
/ UWOX6 LC OsCoesraMewNaO..
4 -96
n rr �v
P ,4
i`
♦e
6
Coastal Views
Map 4 -3
(M.P 3.1 . +)
LEGEND
Public View Point
ti Coastal View Road
•",.. Coastal Zone Boundary
.. City Boundary
1%, shoreline Height
Limitation Zone
Proposed Park
K Public Beach or Park
OMi4s
ynq •
Lf
si.
HARBOR
t r00 � /SCAN
'- �JINCUCA
c
LIDG RA
ISLE (STAND
NEWPORT .
PIER
City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area)
i ", Local Coastal Program
s Coastal Land Use Plan
Au zV1W5 LLPoSHUot Slec Mvbrru0
JUS to `
%4
RAIROA ISLAND
'i �1�k5�Y9Yii
PIFR
PIER )�
) C E A N
4 -97
Historical Resources
Map 4-4
, 75�
n
t
�®
WEOGL � yIC
CORONA
NORTH
/
OYw.
LEGEND
'Balboa
Inn
® Balboa Pavilion
/
(� Balboa Saloon
Balboa Theater
Q Dory Fishing Fleet
Lovell Beach House
McFadden Wharf
Old Landing
1
0 Peppers Restaurant
Ballroom Site
/Rendezvous
Water -to -Water
Flight Monument
• Coastal Zone Boundary
, 75�
n
t
�®
WEOGL � yIC
CORONA
NORTH
/
OYw.
5.0 Glossary
Accrete: To add new material gradually to pre- existing material; opposite of erode.
Accretion: Enlargement of a beach area caused by either natural or artificial means.
Natural accretion on a beach is the build -up or deposition of sand or sediments by
water or wind. Artificial accretion is a similar build -up due to human activity, such as
the accretion due to the construction of a groin or breakwater, or beach fill deposited
by mechanical means.
Anaerobic Soil: Soil that is devoid of interstitial oxygen. In wetlands this condition
most normally occurs because of the sustained presence of water, which limits
contact with the atmosphere.
Anchorage Area: A water area outside of navigation channels designated for the
temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle.
Appealable Area: That portion of the coastal zone within an appealable area
boundary adopted pursuant to Section 30603 of the Coastal Act and approved by the
Coastal Commission and depicted on the Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map.
Appealable Development: After certification of the Newport Beach Local Coastal
Program, an action taken by the City of Newport Beach on a coastal development
permit application may be appealed to the Coastal Commission for only the following
types of developments:
Developments approved by the City between the sea and the first public
road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach
or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever
is the greater distance.
2. Developments approved by the City not included within paragraph (1) that
are located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100
feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, within 300 feet of the top of the
seaward face of any coastal bluff.
Developments approved by the City not included within paragraph (1) or
(2) that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area.
4. Any development approved by a coastal county that is not designated as
the principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance or zoning district
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -1
map approved pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500 of
the Coastal Act).
5. Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a
major energy facility.
Aquacuture: A form of agriculture as defined in Section 17 of the Fish and Game
Code. Aquaculture products are agricultural products, and aquaculture facilities and
land uses shall be treated as agricultural facilities and land uses in all planning and
permit- issuing decisions governed by this division.
A uifer: An underground layer of porous rock, sand, or other earth material
containing water, into which wells may be sunk.
Armor: To fortify a topographical feature to protect it from erosion (e.g., constructing
a wall to armor the base of a sea cliff).
Armor Rock (armor stone): Natural or man -made rock or rock -like structures that are
used for shoreline protection. Commonly, armor rock is used as the outermost layer
of a groin or revetment. Many forms of these rocks are utilized; their overall stability
depends largely on the type of mechanical interlock between the units, and in -place
fitting.
Artificial Hard Structure: Docks, floats, boat bottoms, bulkheads, seawalls, and other
hard surfaces that provide attachment surfaces for marine organisms.
ASBS: Area of Special Biological Significance designation by the California Water
Resources Control Board for a coastal habitat that is susceptible to the effects of
waste discharge.
Backbeach (Dry Beach): The sand area inundated only by storm tides or extreme
high tides. These areas supply sands to the dune system.
Bathvmetrv: Related to submarine contours or topography; also refers to depth
measurements.
Beach: The expanse of sand, gravel, cobble or other loose material that extends
landward from the low water line to the place where there is distinguishable change
in physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. The seaward limit of a
beach (unless specked otherwise) is the mean low water line.
Beach Nourishment Program: Plan for conducting a series of beach nourishment
projects at a specific location, typically over a period of 50 years. The program would
be based on establishing the technical and financial feasibility of beach nourishment
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -2
for the site and would include plans for obtaining funding and sources of sand for its
duration.
Beach Nourishment Project: Placement of sand on a beach to form a designed
structure in which an appropriate level of protection from storms is provided and an
additional amount of sand (advanced fill) is installed to provide for erosion of the
shore prior to the anticipated initiation of a subsequent project. The project may
include dunes and /or hard structures as part of the design.
Bedrock: Solid rock underlying soil and younger rock layers; generally the oldest
exposed geological unit.
Berm: A nearly horizontal portion of the beach or backshore formed by the deposit
of material by wave action. Some beaches have no berms and others may have one
or several.
Berth: A generic term defining any location, such as a floating dock, slip, mooring
and the related water area (berthing area) adjacent to or around it, intended for the
storage of a vessel in water.
Biodiversity: A term used to quantitatively or qualitatively describe the species
richness and abundance of plants and animals within an ecosystem.
Biological Community: A naturally occurring group of different plant and animals
species that live in a particular environment.
Bluff: A high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded
cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water. A bluff may consist of a steep cliff face
below and a more sloping upper bluff above.
Bluff. Coastal: A bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine
erosion. Many coastal bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper
lower bluff or sea cliff. The term "coastal bluff' refers to the entire slope between a
marine terrace or upland area and the sea. The term "sea cliff' refers to the lower,
near vertical portion of a coastal bluff. For purposes of establishing jurisdictional and
permit boundaries coastal bluffs include, (1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or
was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and
(2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine
erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified as an Appealable
Area.
Bluff Edge: The upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff: In cases where the top
edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff as a result of erosional
processes related to the presence of the steep bluff face, the bluff line or edge shall
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -3
be defined as that point nearest the bluff beyond which the downward gradient of the
surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of
the bluff In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the bluff face, the
landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Bluff edges
typically retreat landward due to coastal erosion, landslides, development of gullies,
or by grading (cut). In areas where the bluff top or bluff face has been cut or notched
by grading, the bluff edge shall be the landwardmost position of either the current of
historic bluff edge. In areas where fill has been placed near or over the historic bluff
edge, the original natural bluff edge, even if buried beneath fill, shall be taken to be
the bluff edge.
Bluff Face: The portion of a bluff between the bluff edge and the toe of the bluff.
Bluff Top Retreat (or cliff top retreat): The landward migration of the bluff or cliff
edge, caused by marine erosion of the bluff or cliff toe and subaerial erosion of the
bluff or cliff face.
BMPs (Best Management Practices): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of
practices, operation and maintenance procedures, and other management practices
to prevent or reduce the conveyance of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff, as
well as, treatment requirements and structural treatment devices designed to do the
same.
Buffer: A buffer is a development setback that provides essential open space
between development and protected habitat. Buffers keep disturbance at a distance,
accommodate errors in the estimation of habitat boundaries, and provide important
auxiliary habitat that may be used, for example, for foraging, maintenance of
pollinators, or refuge from high tides. Buffers should be measured from the
delineated boundary of an ESHA or wetland or, for streams, from the top of bank or
the landward edge of riparian vegetation, which ever provides the larger buffer.
Breach: A breakthrough of part, or all, of a protective wall, beach sand barrier, beach
berm, or the like by ocean waves, river or stream flow, mechanical equipment, or a
combination of these forces. Breaching is sometimes purposefully done to protect a
region from river overflow.
Breakwater: A structure or barrier protecting a shore area, harbor, anchorage, or
basin from waves, usually constructed as a concrete or riprap (rock wall) structure.
Bulkhead: Vertical walls built into and along the Harbor shoreline preventing the
erosion of land into the water and to protect the land from wave, tide and current
action by the water, similar to a `retaining wall' on land. Bulkheads may be directly
bordered by water, or may have sloped stones (riprap) or sand beach between the
bulkhead and the water and land areas.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5-4
Bulkhead Line: Harbor land /water perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by
the federal government, which define the permitted limit of filling or solid structures
that may be constructed in the Harbor.
California Least Tern: An endangered bird species that nests on beaches and in salt
marshes along California; smallest of the terns.
Canyon Edge: The upper termination of a canyon: In cases where the top edge of
the canyon is rounded away from the face of the canyon as a result of erosional
processes related to the presence of the canyon face, the canyon edge shall be
defined as that point nearest the canyon beyond which the downward gradient of the
surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of
the canyon. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the canyon face,
the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the canyon edge.
Caulerpa algae: An invasive Mediterranean seaweed introduced to southern
California in 2000 that has a potential to cause severe ecological damage to coastal
and nearshore waters.
CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game (also known as DFG).
CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database.
Channel: A water area in Newport Harbor designated for vessel navigation, with
necessary width and depth requirements, and which may be marked or otherwise
designated on federal navigation charts, as well as in other sources.
Charter Vessel: A vessel used principally for charter purposes, a 'charter" being a
rental agreement, generally for a period of one day or more.
Clast: An individual constituent, grain, or fragment of a sediment or rock, produced
by the mechanical weathering (disintegration) of a larger rock mass.
Cliff: A high, very steep to perpendicular or overhanging face of rock.
Coastal Access: The ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of
coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails.
Coastal- dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a
site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP): A permit for any development within the
coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -5
Coastal Commission: The California Coastal Commission, the state agency
established by state law responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Coastal Act
and for review of coastal permits on appeal from local agencies.
Coastal Plan: The California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan prepared and adopted
by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and submitted to the
Governor and the Legislature on December 1, 1975, pursuant to the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 27000).
Coastal- related Development: Any use that is dependent on a coastal- dependent
development or use.
Coastal Zone: That land and water area of the State of California from the Oregon
border to the border of the Republic of Mexico, specked on the maps identified and
set forth in Section 17 of that chapter of the Statutes of the 1975 -76 Regular Session
enacting this division, extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction,
including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the
mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and
recreational areas it extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or
five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less, and in
developed urban areas the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The
coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2
(commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, nor any area contiguous
thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage
channel flowing into such area.
Contour: A line on a topographic map or bathymetric (depth) chart representing
points of equal elevation with relation to a datum (point or set of points). Contour
lines are usually spaced into intervals for easier comprehension and utilization.
Cretaceous: A period of geologic time spanning 136 -64 million years ago.
_Cumulative Effect (Cumulative Impacts): The incremental effects of an individual
project shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Current: A flow of water in a particular direction. Such flows can be driven by wind,
temperature or density differences, tidal forces, and wave energy. Currents are often
classified by location, such as longshore current, surface current, or deep ocean
currents. Different currents can occur in the same general area, resulting in different
water flows, for example, a rip current can flow perpendicular to the shore through
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5-6
the surf zone, a long shore current may flow southerly, parallel to the coast and a
seasonal deep water current may flow to the north.
Demolition: The deliberate removal or destruction of the frame or foundation of any
portion of a building or structure for the purpose of preparing the site for new
construction or other use.
Development: On land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid
material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any
gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or
extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land,
including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act
(commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division
of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in
connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational
use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction,
reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any
facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of
major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber
operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant
to the provisions of the Zberg- Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with
Section 4511).
Disturbed: A term used to identify a biological habitat that has been altered by
natural or man -made events.
Dock: A structure generally linked to the shoreline, to which a vessel may be
secured. A dock may be fixed to the shore, on pilings, or floating in the water.
Dominant: The major plant or animal species in a community.
Downcoast: In the United States usage, it is the coastal direction generally trending
toward the south; also the way in which current flows.
DPR: California State Department of Parks and Recreation.
Dry Storage: Dry storage of vessels includes all on -land storage of vessels including
vessels normally stored in open or enclosed rack structures, on trailers, on cradles,
on boat stands, or by other means.
Dune: Ridges or mounds of loose, wind -blown material usually sand. A dune
structure often has a back and foredune area. Stable dunes are often colonized by
vegetation.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5-7
DWR: California State Department of Water Resources
Easement: A limited right to make use of a land owned by another, for example, a
right of way across the property.
Ebb Tide: The period of tide between high water and the succeeding low water; a
falling tide (opposite = flood tide).
Eel grass: A marine flowering plant (Zostera marina) that is found primarily in coastal
bays and estuaries on soft substrate.
El Nino: A term used to describe a cyclic weather pattern caused by changes in
tropical ocean current patterns that result in worldwide changes in weather patterns.
Energy Facility: Any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing,
transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other
source of energy.
Entertainment/Excursion Vessels: Commercial vessels engaged in the carrying of
passengers for hire for hire for the purposes of fishing, whale watching, diving,
educational activities, harbor and coastal tours, dining/drinking, business or social
special events and entertainment.
Eocene: A period of geologic time spanning 54 -38 million years ago.
Ephemeral: Short-lived (e.g, an ephemeral stream only flows immediately after
rainfall).
Equilibrium Beach Width: The mean distance between the shoreline and backbeach
line at which sand contributions and losses are balanced.
Erode: The gradual wearing away and removal of land surface by various agents
such as waves; opposite of accrete.
Erosion: The wearing away of land by natural forces. On a beach, the carrying away
of beach material by wave action, currents or the wind.
ESA (Environmental Study Area): Relatively large, undeveloped areas containing
natural habitats and may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources.
ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area): Any area in which plant or animal
life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special
nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by
human activities and development (PRC 30107.5).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -8
Estuarine System: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are
usually semi - enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access
to the ocean, with ocean water at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from
the land. The upstream and landward limit is where ocean - derived salts measure
less than 0.5 parts per thousand during the period of average annual low flow.
Estuary: The region near a river mouth in which the fresh water of the river mixes
with the salt water of the sea.
Evaluation: Process by which a project's performance is determined relative to
criteria developed for this purpose.
Exclusion Area: That portion of the coastal zone within an exclusion area boundary
adopted pursuant to the Coastal Act and approved by the Coastal Commission after
the effective date of the delegation of development review authority and depicted on
the certified Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. Development within this area is
excluded from coastal development permit requirements if certain criteria identified in
the adopted exclusion are met.
Exclusion Areas Man: A map depicting those areas where specified development
types are excluded from the coastal development permit requirements.
Fault: A rock fracture accompanied by displacement.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors.
Federal Coastal Act: The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 1451, et seq.), as amended.
Fen: A unique type of wetland characterized by a saturated substrate dominated by
organic material in which acidic conditions (pH < 7) prevail. Contrast with a bog,
which has a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which basic
conditions (pH > 7) prevail.
Fill: Earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the
purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area.
First Public Road Paralleling the Sea: The road nearest the sea, as defined in this
Section, and which meets all of the following criteria:
1. The road is lawfully open and suitable for uninterrupted use by the public;
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -9
2. The road is maintained by a public agency;
3. The road contains an improved all- weather surface open to motor vehicle
traffic in at least one direction;
4. The road is not subject to any restrictions on use by the public except
during an emergency or for military purposes; and
5. The road connects with other public roads providing a continuous access
system and generally parallels and follows the shoreline of the sea so as
to include all portions of the sea where the physical features such as bays,
lagoons, estuaries and wetlands cause the waters of the sea to extend
landward of the generally continuous coastline.
Forebeach (Wet Beach): The sand area affected regularly by tides and wave action.
Foreshore (or Beach Face): Region of the coast extending from the berm crest (or
the highest point of wave wash at high tide) to the low -water mark that is measured
at low tide.
Formation: A unit of rock that is distinctive and persistent over a large area.
Fossiliferous: Rock units containing fossils.
Geohazard: A risk associated with geologic processes or events.
Giant Kelp: A large brown seaweed (Macrocystis pyrifera) that grows primarily on
rocky substrate and forms a underwater 'forest" in which a diverse group of algae,
invertebrates, and fishes are found.
GIS (Geographic Information System): A GIS is a computer system capable of
assembling, storing, manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced
information. A GIS allows analysis of spatial relationships between many different
types of features based on their location in the landscape.
Global Positioning System (GPS): A satellite -based navigational system.
Gravity Walls: Massive, self - supporting walls which resist horizontal wave forces
through their sheer mass.
Grid: City of Newport 2000'X 3000' aerial reference grid
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -10
Groin: A shoreline protection structure built, usually perpendicular to the shoreline,
to trap nearshore sediment or retard erosion of the shore. A series of groins acting
together to protect a section of beach is known as a groin system or groin field.
Groundwater: Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation usually found in
porous rock strata and soils.
Habitat: The locality, including the physical and biological environment, in which a
plant or animal lives.
Hardscaae Habitat: Hard surfaces of pilings, docks, floats, wharves, seawalls,
bulkheads, jetties, and rock groins, and natural intertidal and subtidal reefs that are
colonized by marine organisms
Harbor Lines: All established Bulkhead, Pierhead, and Project Lines as defined
within Newport Harbor by the federal, state, county and city governments.
Harbor Maintenance Uses Equipment and Facilities: All uses, and their related
equipment, vessels, docking and land storage facilities and access which provide:
dredging and beach replenishment; demolition, repair and new construction of docks,
piers, bulkheads and other in- and - over -water structures; mooring maintenance and
repair; waterborne debris and pollution control, collection and removal. This category
also includes environmental, survey or scientific vessels and related equipment
based, or on assignment, in Newport Harbor: All vessels under this definition may
also be referred to as "work boats."
Harbor Permit Policies: City of Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual Section
H -1, governing permits for structures bayward of the bulkhead line, and related
parking, sanitary, utility and related support requirements
Harbor Regulations: Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing
structures, uses and activities within the Harbor.
Headland (Head): A high, steep -faced projection extending into the sea, usually
marking an area of fairly stable and rigid landform.
Historic Building or Structure: See Historic Resource.
Historic District: A geographic area which contains a concentration of historic
buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.
Historic Resource: Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript which is historically or archeologically significant, or which is significant in
the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agriculture, educational, social,
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -11
political, military, or cultural history of the City of Newport Beach and/or California
and /or the United States.
Holocene: In geologic time, less than 11,000 years ago; also called Recent.
Hydric Soil: A type of soil with characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation
and chemically reducing conditions such as occurs under anaerobic conditions.
Hydrology: The dynamic processes of the water within an environment including the
sources, timing, amount, and direction of water movement.
Hvdrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic
environments. These plants are also called hydrophytes. In wetlands, hydrophytc
species occur where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually
found in saturated or submerged soil.
Implementing Actions: The ordinances, regulations, or programs which implement
either the provisions of the certified local coastal program or the policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act which are submitted pursuant to Section 30502.
In Situ: A Latin phrase meaning "in place." Archaeologically it refers to an artifact or
object being found in its original, undisturbed position.
Intertidal: Located between the low and high tide tidal extremes.
Invertebrates: Animals without backbones
JJ : On open seacoasts, a structure extending away from the shore, which is
designed to prevent shoaling of a channel and to direct and confine the stream or
tidal flow. Jetties are built at the mouths of rivers, harbors, or tidal inlets to help
deepen and stabilize the access channel.
Lacustrine System: Wetlands and deepwater habitat
depression or dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees,
emergent mosses, or lichens with greater than 30% s
total area exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres); or area
boundary is active wave - formed or bedrock or if wate
the basin exceeds 2 meters (6.6 ft) at low water. Ocea
less than 0.5 parts per thousand.
(1) situated in a topographic
shrubs, persistent emergents,
real coverage; and (3) whose
less than 6 hectares if the
depth in the deepest part of
i- derived salinities are always
Lagoon: A shallow body of water, such as a pond or lake, usually located near or
connected to the sea.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -12
Land Use Plan: The relevant portions of a local government's general plan, or local
coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and
intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies
and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions.
Launching Facility: A generic term referring to any location, structures (ramps,
docks) and equipment (cranes, lifts, hoists, etc.) where vessels may be placed into,
and retrieved from the Harbor waters.
LCP: See Local Coastal Program.
Leeward: The direction toward which the wind is blowing
Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations — Any hotel, motel, or other similar
facility that provides overnight visitor accommodations wherein some or all of the
units, rooms, lots or parcels or other segment of the facility may be sold to a
subsequent purchaser who receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or a term of years,
to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or
segment of the facility, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a
period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods
into which the facility has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to
timeshare, condominium - hotel, fractional ownership hotel, or uses of a similar nature,
as those terms shall be defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan
(when such regulations are certified).
Liquefaction: The process of becoming liquid, especially applied to sand that loses
its bearing strength due to strong shaking.
Littoral: Of or pertaining to a shore, especially of the sea.
Littoral Cell: A region that encompasses most features affecting sediment transport.
The boundaries of the cell are usually delineated by river drainage areas, promontory
headlands, or submarine canyons on the periphery, the continental shelf - continental
slope boundary on the seaward side and by inland ridges and river inlets on the
landward side. Sediment within these cells generally travel seaward by river
drainage, southward (downcoast) by longshore currents, and are eventually lost to
the continental slope area or submarine canyon.
Littoral Drift: The sedimentary material moved in the littoral zone under the influence
of waves and currents; consisting of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and other beach
material.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -13
Littoral Transport: The movement of sediment in the littoral zone by waves, currents,
and tides. This includes movement parallel (longshore transport) and perpendicular
(on- offshore transport) to the shore.
Littoral Zone: The region where waves, currents, and winds interact with the land
and its sediments. This region comprises a backshore, foreshore, inshore, and
offshore and is broken down into littoral cells.
Live- aboard: Any person who uses a vessel as a domicile as that term is defined in
Section 200 of the Elections Code of the State of California, including permanently or
on a temporary basis for a period exceeding 3 days.
Local Coastal Program: A local government's (a) land use plans, (b) zoning
ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas,
other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of,
and implement the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local level.
Local Government: Any chartered or general law city, chartered or general law
county, or any city and county.
Longshore: Parallel to and near the shoreline.
Longshore Current: A flow of water in the breaker zone, moving essentially parallel
to the shore, usually generated by waves breaking at an angle to the shoreline.
LUP (Land Use Plan): Land use plan means the relevant portion of a local
government's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to
indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource
protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing
actions.
Marina: A berthing facility (other than moorings or anchorage) in which five or more
vessels are wet- stored (in water) and/ or dry- stored (on land /racks or on floating
docks).
Marine Conservation Area: A "state marine conservation area," is a non - terrestrial
marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve
one or more of the following:
1. protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants,
animals or habitats in marine areas;
2. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine
species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -14
3. protect or restore diverse marine gene pools;
4. contribute to the understanding and management of marine
resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific
research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats
or ecosystems;
5. preserve outstanding or unique geological features; or
6. provide for sustainable living marine resource harvest.
Marine Park: A "state marine park," is a non - terrestrial marine or estuarine area
that is designated so the managing agency may provide opportunities for spiritual,
scientific, educational, and recreational opportunities, as well as one or more of
the following:
1. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine
species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
2. contribute to the understanding and management of marine
resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific
research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats
or ecosystems;
3. preserve cultural objects of historical, archaeological and scientific
interest in marine areas; or
4. preserve outstanding or unique geological features.
Marine Reserve: A "state marine reserve," is a non - terrestrial marine or estuarine
area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the
following:
1. protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants,
animals or habitats in marine areas;
2. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine
species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
3. protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or
4. contribute to the understanding and management of marine
resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific
research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats
or ecosystems.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -15
Marine System: Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and coastline exposed
to waves and currents of the open ocean shoreward to (1) extreme high water of
spring tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergents, trees, or shrubs; or (3) the
seaward limit of the Estuarine System, other than vegetation. Salinities exceed 30
parts per thousand.
Marine Terrace: A flat or gentle seaward sloping wave -cut bench, which is a
remnant of an old coastline. Marine terraces are conspicuous along most of the
California coast where uplift has occurred.
Market Value: For purposes of determining "substantial improvement", the
replacement cost as determined by its replacement value according to the valuation
figures established by the City of Newport Beach.
Mean High Water: The 19 -year average of all high water heights (if the tide is either
semidiurnal or mixed) or the higher high water heights if the tide is diurnal. For
diurnal tides high water and higher high water are the same.
Mean Higher High Water: The 19 -year average of only the higher high water
heights.
Mean Low Water: The 19 -year average of all low water heights (if the tide is either
semidiumal or mixed) or the lower low water heights if the tide is diurnal. For diurnal
tides low water and lower low water are the same.
Mean Lower Low Water: The 19 -year average of only the lower low water heights.
Mean Sea Level: The 19 -year average height of the surface of the sea for all stages
of the tide, usually determined from hourly height readings (see NGVD of 1929).
Mesa: An isolated, relatively flat geographical feature, often demarcated by canyons
(from Spanish mesa, table).
Miocene: A period of geologic time spanning 27 -26 million years ago.
Mitigation: As defined in Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, mitigation includes:
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of
an action.
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -16
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
impacted environment.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
Mitigation Measures: Measures imposed on a project consistent with Section 15370
of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act to avoid, minimize, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment.
Monitoring: The systematic collection of physical, biological, or economic data or a
combination of these data in order to make decisions regarding project operation or
to evaluate project performance. Monitoring is typically required for beach
nourishment projects and habitat restoration projects.
Mooring: A device consisting of a floating ball, can or other object that is secured
permanently to the Harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a
vessel.
Mooring Area: An area designated for a group of moorings.
MPA (Marine Protected Area): A named discrete geographic area that has been
designated by law, administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve
marine life and habitat.
MS4: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD): A fixed reference for elevations,
equivalent to the 1929 Mean Sea Level Datum. The geodetic datum is fixed and
does not take into account the changing stands of sea level. NGVD should not be
confused with mean sea level (see Mean Sea Level).
Nearshore Zone: An indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well
beyond the breaker zone; it defines the area of nearshore currents.
Newport Bay: The terms "Newport Bay" and "Newport Harbor" are often used
interchangeably. However, Newport Bay is an estuary consisting of the Lower
Newport Bay (south of Pacific Coast Highway) and the Upper Newport Bay (north of
Pacific Coast Highway), Newport Harbor generally refers to all the water area within
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -17
Lower Newport Bay and within the Upper Newport Bay, exclusive of the Upper
Newport Bay Marine Park.
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service.
Non - conforming Structure: A structure that was lawfully erected, but which does not
conform with the property development regulations prescribed in the regulations for
the district in which the structure is located by reason of adoption or amendment of
this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.
Non - conforming Use: A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and
maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required
conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of
this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.
Nourishment: The process of replenishing or enlarging a beach. It may be brought
about naturally by longshore transport or artificially by the deposition of dredged
materials.
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NPS: National Park Service.
Open Coastal Waters: The area composed of submerged lands at extreme low -
water of spring tide extending seaward to the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone (12 -200 miles). This includes navigation channels, turning basins, vessel
berthing, anchorage, and mooring areas of Newport Bay.
NPS: Nonpoint source pollution or polluted runoff.
Offshore: Off or away from the shore. This area extends from beyond the breaker
zone to the outer limit of the littoral zone and beyond.
Onshore (Inshore): The region between the seaward edge of the foreshore and the
seaward edge of the breakers or waves.
OTD (Offer to Dedicate): An OTD is a document, recorded against the title to a
property, which is an offer of dedication to the people of the State of California of an
easement over the property or a portion of the property. Generally, an OTD allows
for specific uses in of the area of the property involved (for example, allowing the
public to walk across the area). The offer conveys an easement in perpetuity only
upon its acceptance on behalf of the people by a public agency or by a nonprofit
private entity approved by the executive director of the Coastal Commission.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -18
Palustrine System: All non -tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent
emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where ocean -
derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand. This category also includes
wetlands lacking such vegetation but with all of the following characteristics: (1) area
less than 8 hectares (20 acres); (2) lacking an active wave - formed or bedrock
boundary; (3) water depth in the deepest part of the basin less than 2 meters (6.6 ft)
at low water; and (4) ocean- derived salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand.
Permit: Any license, certificate, approval, or other entitlement for use granted or
denied by any public agency.
Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map: A map depicting those areas where the Coastal
Commission retains permit and appeal jurisdiction.
Person: Any individual, organization, partnership, limited liability company, or other
business association or corporation, including any utility, and any federal, state, local
government, or special district or an agency thereof.
Pile: A long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal driven or drilled into the
earth or seabed to serve as a support or protection.
Pier: A fixed structure extending from the shore into a body of water.
Pier. Private: A pier used for private recreational purposes by the owner(s) or
occupant(s) of the abutting upland property without payment of a separate rental or
lease fee, except for permit fees to City.
Pier, Public: A pier used for public recreational purposes provided by a public
agency.
Pierhead Line: Harbor water area perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by
the federal government that define the permitted limit of fixed pier, floating dock and
other in -water structures which may be constructed in the Harbor.
Pleistocene: A period of geologic time spanning 2 million - 11,000 years ago.
Pliocene: A period of geologic time spanning 7 -2 million years ago.
Pocket Beach: A small beach formed between two points or headlands, often at the
mouth of a coastal stream. Pocket beaches are common throughout the California
coastline.
Predominant Line of Development: The most common or representative distance
from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic line
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -19
or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of development for a
block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be
determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these
structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line).
Project Lines: Harbor water area channel lines of the improvements constructed by
the federal government in 1935 -1936, and as shown on navigation charts of Newport
Harbor. Also referred to as the "Federal Channel." (see Newport Beach City Design
Criteria and Standard Drawings for Harbor Construction).
Public Trust Lands: Public Trust lands shall be defined as all lands subject to the
Common Law Public Trust for commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and other
public purposes. Public Trust Lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of
navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are
presently filled or reclaimed and which were subject to the Public Trust at any time
(from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see tidelands and submerged
lands).
Public works:
1. All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water,
sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any
public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public
Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities.
2. All public transportation facilities, including streets, roads, highways, public
parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, airports, railroads, and mass
transit facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and other related
facilities. For purposes of this division, neither the Ports of Hueneme, Long
Beach, Los Angeles, nor San Diego Unified Port District nor any of the
developments within these ports shall be considered public works.
3. All publicly financed recreational facilities, all projects of the State Coastal
Conservancy, and any development by a special district.
4. All community college facilities.
Quaternary: A period of geologic time comprising the past 2 million years; includes
the Pleistocene and Holocene ages.
Qualified Biologist: A person who has earned a minimum of a Bachelor of Science
degree in biology or a related field from an accredited college or university and has
demonstrated field experience evaluating land use impacts on marine or wildlife
species and their habitats. Biologists who conduct wetland delineations shall have
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -20
completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "Reg IV" wetland delineation training,
or the equivalent, and shall have the demonstrated ability to independently conduct
wetland delineations.
Riparian: Consists of trees, shrubs, or herbs that occur along watercourses or water
bodies. The vegetation is adapted to flooding and soil saturation during at least a
portion of its growing season.
Reflection: Redirection of a wave when it impinges on a steep beach, cliff or other
barrier;
Retaining Wall: A wall used to support or retain an earth embankment or area of fill.
Revetment: A sloped retaining wall; a facing of stone, concrete, blocks, rip -rap, etc.
built to protect an embankment, bluff, or development against erosion by wave action
and currents.
Rill: The channel of a small stream or gully
Rip Current: A strong surface current flowing seaward from the shore. It usually
appears as a visible band of agitated water and is the return movement of water
piled up on the shore by incoming waves and wind. With the seaward movement
concentrated in a limited band its velocity is accentuated. Rip currents can pull
inexperienced swimmers and waders into deeper water away from the shore. Since
a rip current is usually quite narrow, the most effective way to get out of it is to swim
perpendicular to the. direction of the flow (in most cases, parallel to the beach). Rip
currents can often develop adjacent to a jetty or groin.
Riprap: A protective layer or facing of rock, concrete blocks or quarrystone, placed
to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment or bluff.
Riverine System: All wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel
except those wetlands (1) dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents,
emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) which have habitats with ocean- derived
salinities in excess of 0.5 parts per thousand.
RWQCB: State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Sand Source: Resource of sand that can be economically used for beach
nourishment. The sand must meet the requirements for size distribution and
cleanliness and its removal and transfer must not create unacceptable environmental
effects. The source may be on land, offshore, in a nearby inlet, or in a navigational
channel, a shoal, or other area in which sand accumulates.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -21
Sandstone: A rock composed predominantly of sand grains that have undergone
cementation.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
Scarp (Beach Scarp): An almost vertical slope along the beach caused by wave
erosion. It may vary in height from a few inches to several feet or more, depending
on wave action and the nature and composition of the beach.
Sea: The Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes,
sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the
Pacific Ocean, excluding nonestuarine rivers, streams, tributaries, creeks, and flood
control and drainage channels. Sea does not include the area of jurisdiction of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established
pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code,
including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel
flowing directly or indirectly into such area.
Sea Cliff: A vertical or very steep cliff or slope produced by wave erosion, situated at
the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave -cut platform, and
marking the inner limit of beach erosion.
Sea Level: The height of the ocean relative to land; tides, wind, atmospheric
pressure changes, heating, cooling, and other factors cause sea -level changes.
Seas (Waves): Waves caused by wind at the place and time of observation. (see
swell).
Seawall: A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent
erosion and other damage due to wave action. It is usually a vertical wood or
concrete wall as opposed to a sloped revetment.
Second Units: Auxiliary residential units on a lot with an existing primary residential
unit. Second units may lack full facilities, such as kitchens.
Sediment: Grains of soil, sand, or rock that have been transported from one location
and deposited at another.
Sediment Budget: An account of the sand and sediment along a particular stretch of
coast; the sources, sinks, rates of movement, or the supply and loss of sediment.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -22
Seiche: A standing wave oscillation in an enclosed waterbody that continues (in a
pendulum fashion) after the cessation of the originating force. Seiches can be
caused by tidal action or an offshore seismic event.
Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: Those identifiable and geographically bounded
land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. Sensitive
coastal resource areas include the following:
1. Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries
as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan.
2. Areas possessing significant recreational value.
3. Highly scenic areas.
4. Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation
Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
5. Special communities or neighborhoods that are significant visitor
destination areas.
6. Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities
for low- and moderate - income persons.
7. Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal
access.
Sensitive Species: Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution,
declining throughout their range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle
that warrants monitoring.
Shore: Narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone
between high and low water. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a
beach.
Shore Mooring: A mooring for small boats that is located in the nearshore perimeter
of the Harbor and its islands, perpendicular to the shoreline. One end of the mooring
line is attached to a point on or adjacent to the perimeter bulkhead, and the other
end is attached to a mooring buoy located in the water, inside the pierhead line.
Shore Protection: Structures or sand placed at or on the shore to reduce or
eliminate upland damage from wave action or flooding during storms.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -23
Shoreline: Intersection of the ocean or sea with land; the line delineating the
shoreline on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the
mean low water line from the time the chart was prepared.
Shoreline Armoring: Protective structures such as vertical seawalls, revetments,
riprap, revetments, and bulkheads built parallel to the shoreline for the purposes of
protecting a structure or other upland property.
SLC: State Lands Commission
Slough: To erode the uppermost layer of soil, or to crumble and fall away from the
face of a cliff.
Special District: Any public agency, other than a local government, formed pursuant
to general law or special act for the local performance of governmental or proprietary
functions within limited boundaries. Special district includes, but is not limited to, a
county service area, a maintenance district or area, an improvement district or
improvement zone, or any other zone or area, formed for the purpose of designating
an area within which a property tax rate will be levied to pay for a service or
improvement benefiting that area.
Spit:
A small, naturally formed point of land or a narrow shoal projecting into a body
of water from the shore.
Storm Surge: A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of
wind stress on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also
includes the rise in level due to atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due to
wind stress.
Stream: A topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed
or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or
subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.
Structure: Includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit,
siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution
line.
Submarine Canyon: A steep -sided underwater valley commonly crossing the
continental shelf and slope.
Submerged Lands: Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which lie below the
line of mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see
Public Trust Lands).
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -24
Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the
cost of restoring the structure to the condition existing before damage would equal or
exceed 50 percent of the market value before the damage occurred.
Substantial Repair: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the
cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure
before such repair, reconstruction, or improvement. This term includes structures
that have incurred "substantial damage" regardless of the actual repair work
performed. For purposes of coastal development permitting, a substantial
improvement to a structure qualifies the proposed development as new
development.
Subtidal: Marine habitat that is permanently below the extreme low tide line
Summer Season: Begins the day before the Memorial Day weekend and ends the
day after the Labor Day weekend; alternatively, June 15th to September 15th.
Surfgrass: A type of marine flowering plant that forms meadows on rocky shorelines
and shallow rocky subtidal reefs.
Surf Zone: Area between the outermost breaking waves and the limit of wave
uprush.
SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board.
Talus: A pile of rock debris at the base of a cliff.
Tectonic: Related to the earth's surface.
Temporary Event: An activity or use that constitutes development as defined in this
LCP but which is an activity or function which is or will be of limited duration and
involves the placement of non - permanent structures; and /or involves the use of
sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets, or parking areas which are
otherwise open and available for general public use.
Terrace: A gently sloping platform cut by wave action.
Terrestrial: Land - related.
Tidal Epoch (National Tidal Datum Epoch): The specific 19 -year period adopted by
the National Ocean Service as the official time segment over which tide observations
are taken and averaged to form tidal datums, such as Mean Lower Low Water. The
19 -year period includes an 18.6 year astronomical cycle that accounts for all
significant variations in the moon and sun that cause slowly varying changes in the
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -25
range of tides. A calendar day is 24 hours and a "tidal day" is approximately 24.84
hours. Due to the variation between calendar day and tidal day, it takes 19 years for
these two time cycles to establish a repeatable pattern. Thus, if the moon is full
today, then the moon will be full again on this day of the year 19 years from today.
The present tidal epoch used is 1983 - 2001.
Tidal Prism: The total amount of water that flows into a harbor or estuary or out
again with movement of the tide, excluding any freshwater flow.
Tidal Range: Difference between consecutive high and low (of higher high and lower
low) waters. (see Tides).
Tidal Wave: Wave movement of the tides. Often improperly used for tsunamis (see
Tsunami).
Tide: The periodic rising and falling of the water that results from gravitational
attraction of the moon and sun, and other astronomical bodies, acting upon the
rotating earth. The California coast has a mixed tidal occurrence, with two daily high
tides of different elevations and two daily low tides, also of different elevations. Other
tidal regimes are diurnal tides, with only one high and one low tide daily, and
semidiurnal, with two high and two low tides daily, with comparatively little daily
inequality between each high or each low tide level
Tidelands: Tidelands shall be defined as lands that are located between the lines of
mean high tide and mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section
13577; see Public Trust Lands).
TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load): The maximum amount of a pollutant that can be
discharged into a water body from all sources (point and non - point) and still maintain
water quality standards. Under Clean Water Act section 303(d), TMDLs must be
developed for all water bodies that do not meet water quality standards after
application of technology -based controls. TMDL also refers to the written,
quantitative analysis and plan for attaining and maintaining water quality standards in
all seasons for a specific waterbody and pollutant.
Treatment Works: Has the same meaning as set forth in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) and any other federal act that amends or
supplements the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Tsunami: A long period wave, or seismic sea wave, caused by an underwater
disturbance such as a volcanic eruption or earthquake. Commonly misnamed a Tidal
Wave.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -26
Turbidity: A measure of the extent to which water is stirred up or disturbed, as by
sediment; opaqueness due to suspended sediment.
Turning Basin: An area, often designated on nautical charts, connected to a channel
that is large enough to allow vessels to maneuver or turn around.
Undertow: A seaward current near the bottom on a sloping inshore zone, caused by
the return, under the action of gravity, of the water carried up on the shore by waves.
Commonly misnamed a Rip Current.
Upcoast: In the United States usage, the coastal direction, generally trending toward
the north, from which a current comes. Sediment will often deposit on the upcoast
side of a jetty, groin, or headland, reducing the amount of sediment that is available
for transport further downcoast.
Updrift: The direction opposite that of the predominant movement of littoral
materials.
USACOE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC: United States Code.
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (also known as FWS)
Vernal Pools: Vernal pools are low depressions that typically are flooded and
saturated above a hardpan or claypan for several weeks to a few months in the
winter and spring.
Vessel: Watercraft, such as boats, ships, small craft, barges, etc. whether
motorized, sail - powered or hand - powered, which are used or capable of being used
as a means of transportation, recreation, safety /rescue, service or commerce on
water. This includes all vessels of any size (other than models) homeported,
launched /retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and
registered or unregistered under state or federal requirements.
Watershed: The geographical area drained by a river and its connecting tributaries
into a common source. A watershed may, and often does, cover a very large
geographical region.
Wave: A ridge, deformation, or undulation of the surface of a liquid. On the ocean,
most waves are generated by wind and are often referred to as wind waves.
Wave Climate: The range if wave parameters (Height, period and direction)
characteristic of a coastal location.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -27
Wave Height: The vertical distance from a wave trough to crest
Wave Length (Wavelength): The horizontal distance between successive crests or
between successive troughs of waves.
Wave Period: The time for a wave crest to traverse a distance equal to one
wavelength, which is the time for two successive wave crests to pass a fixed point.
Wave Run -up: The distance or extent that water from a breaking wave will extend
up a beach or structure.
Wave -cut Platform: The near - horizontal plane cut by wave action into a bedrock
formation at the shoreline.
Wetland: Land which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water
and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water
marshes, mudfiats, and fens. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is
covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have
one or more of the following attributes:
1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; or
2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; or
3. The substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow
water at some time during the growing season of each year.
Wildlife Corridor: The concept of habitat corridors addresses the linkage between
large blocks of habitat that allow the safe movement of medium to large mammals
from one habitat area to another. The definition of a corridor is varied but corridors
may include such areas as greenbelts, refuge systems, underpasses, and
biogeographic landbridges, for example.
Windward: The direction from which the wind is blowing.
Zoning Code: Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, as amended
Zostera marina: See eelgrass.
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
5 -28
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -001
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of
Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 as amended by the California Coastal Commission. The amendment affects
all properties within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach.
The purpose of the amendment is to update the narratives, policies, and maps of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan to
reflect the location, type, densities, and intensities of land uses established by the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan and to
incorporate other new polices of General Plan, which was adopted on November 7, 2006. The initial draft was adopted by the City Council on
November 13, 2007. Subsequent to the City's approval of the amendment, it was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval
as required by the Coastal Act.
On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Commission adopted the proposed amendment while requiring 50 modifications to the Coastal
Land Use Plan. Those modifications are not effective unless the City accepts them. Those modifications included rejecting the proposed land
use categories for 12 areas, modification of policies regarding mixed -use development in the Mariners' Mile area, new policies regarding
timeshare developments and mitigation of the potential loss of lower -cost visitor accommodations. New policies regarding alternative
transportation were included and several minor technical fixes to the text and maps were included. The amendment and Coastal Commission
modifications can be found at httpi//www.city.newi)ort-boach.ca.us/PLN/LCP/LCP,htm
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 14. 2009, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons
interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
If you have any questions, please call James Campbell, Senior Planner at (949) 644 -3210 or e-mail to JCam be c it .new ort- beach.ca.us.
A t.
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -001
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of
Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 as amended by the California Coastal Commission. The amendment affects
all properties within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach.
The purpose of the amendment is to update the narratives, policies, and maps of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan to
reflect the location, type, densities, and intensities of land uses established by the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan and to
incorporate other new polices of General Plan, which was adopted on November 7, 2006. The initial draft was adopted by the City Council on
November 13, 2007. Subsequent to the City's approval of the amendment, it was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval
as required by the Coastal Act.
On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Commission adopted the proposed amendment while requiring 50 modifications to the Coastal
Land Use Plan. Those modifications are not effective unless the City accepts them. Those modifications included rejecting the proposed land
use categories for 12 areas, modification of policies regarding mixed -use development in the Mariners' Mile area, new policies regarding
timeshare developments and mitigation of the potential loss of lower -cost visitor accommodations. New policies regarding alternative
transportation were included and several minor technical fixes to the text and maps were included. The amendment and Coastal Commission
modifications can be found at htti)://www.city.newi)ort-boach.ca.us/PLN/LCP/LCP.h tm
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 14. 2009, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons
interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
If you have any questions, please call James Campbell, Senior Planner at (949) 644 -3210 or e-mail to JCampbell@city.newport-beach ca.us.
04�� - kql�i,
Leilani I, Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on:
Adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, adding Chapter 75 to Title 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code pertaining to Adoption of the Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said public hearing will.be held on
Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons
interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project
in court, you may be limited to rising only those issued you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For
information call (949) 644 -3311.
Leilani I. Brow
City Clerk
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by
Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214
September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1%3. RECEIVED
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am
over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to or interested in the below entitled
matter. I am a principal clerk of the
NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA
DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the
City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange,
State of California, and that attached
Notice is a true and complete copy as
was printed and published on the
following dates:
June 27, 2009
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 29, 2009 at
Costa Mesa, California.
Signature
JUL -2 N la. 25
O l OF
THE CITY CLERK
CF "n'nCRT LECiI
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Mae of Pilhli<Heal
Lend coastal Plwpml
Coastal Land Use Plan
77=:d c i41 :l
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing
on the application of the
City of Newport Beach for
Local Coastal Plan
Amendment No. 2007 -001
as amended by the Cali
forma Coastal Commis-
sion. The amendment of
facts all properties within
the coastal zone of the
City of Newport Beach.
The purpose of the
amendment is to update
the narratives, policies,
and maps of the Local
Coastal Program (LCP)
Coastal Land Use Plan to
reflect the location, type,
densities, and intensities
of land uses established
by the updated Land Use
Element of the General
Plan and to incorporate
other new polices of Gen-
eral Plan. which was
adopted on November 7,
2006. The initial draft was
adopted by the Gay Coun-
cif on November 13, 2707.
Subsequent to the City's
approval of the
amendment, it was sub
milled to the California
Coastal Commission for
approval as required by
the Coastal Act.
On February 5, 2009, the
California Coastal Com
mission adopted the pro
posed amendment while
requiring 50 modifica
bons to the Coastal
Land Use Plan. Those
modifications are not ef-
fective unless the City
accepts them. Those
modifications included
rejecting the proposed
land use categories for
%l
12 areas, modification of
policies regarding
msxed -use development
in the Mariners Mlle
area, new policies re-
g;rding timeshare devel-
opments and mitigation
of the potential loss of
lower -cost visitor ac-
commodations. New
policies regarding alter
native transportation
were included and sev
eraf minor technical
fixes to the text and
maps were included. The
amendment and Coastal
Commission modihca-
tions can be found at
http: / /www.city.
nawpotl -lini ca.at/
PLN/LCP /LCP.htm
NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR-
THER GIVEN that said
public hearing will be
held on
July 14, 2009, at the
hour of 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City Hall,
3300 Newport Boule-
vard, Newport Beach,
California, at which time
and place any and all
persons interested may
appear and be heard
thereon. It you challenge
this project in court, you
may be limited to raising
only those issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing de-
scribed in this notice or
in written corre-
spondence delivered to
the City at, or prior to,
the public hearing.
If you have any ques-
tions, please call James
Campbell. Senior Plan
net at (949) 644 -3210
or email to
J Ca an pb a ll @city.
asimpart-bea i.m.us.
Leilam I Brown
City Clerk
Published Newport Beach/
Costa Mesa Daily Pilot
i June 27, 2009 Sl
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2007021054
AERIE
(PA 2005 -196)
City Of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Prepared by:
Keeton Kreitzer Consulting
17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305
Tustin, CA 92780
March 2009
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH NO. 2007021054
AERIE
(PA2005 -196)
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Contact: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210
Prepared by:
Keeton Kreitzer Consulting
17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305
Tustin, CA 92680
Contact: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) 665 -8509
ffjjT,T:7r
4v.fTj Mj-
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
AERIE PA2005 -196
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table of Contents
Page
1 -1
1.1
Description of the Proposed Project .......................................................... ............................1
-1
1.2
Alternatives ................................................................................................. ............................1
-3
1.3
Areas of Controversy ................................................................................. ............................1
-4
1.4
Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................ ............................1
-4
1.5
Impact Summary Table .............................................................................. ............................1
-5
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ ............................2
-1
2.1
Purpose of the Draft EIR ........................................................... .............................................
2 -1
2.2
Methodology ............................................................................................... ............................2
-5
2.3
Format of the Draft EIR .............................................................................. ............................2
-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... ............................3
-1
3.1
Project Location .......................................................................................... ............................3
-1
3.2
Environmental Setting ................................................................................ ............................3
-1
3.3
History and Evolution of the Existing Development .................................. ...........................3
-11
3.4
Description of the Proposed Project ......................................................... ...........................3
-12
3.5
Project Phasing ......................................................................................... ...........................3
-27
3.6
Project Objectives ..................................................................................... ...........................3
-28
3.7
Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements ............. ...........................3
-29
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. ............................4 -1
4.1 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................
..........................4.1 -1
4.1.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.1 -1
4.1.2
Significance Criteria .....................................................................
..........................4.1 -6
4.1.3
Standard Conditions ....................................................................
..........................4.1 -7
4.1.4
Potential Impacts .........................................................................
..........................4.1 -7
4.1.5
Mitigation Measures ...................................................................
.........................4.1 -45
4.1.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................
.........................4.1 -45
4.2 Traffic
and Circulation ...............................................................................
..........................4.2 -1
4.2.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.2 -1
4.2.2
Significance Criteria .....................................................................
..........................4.2 -1
4.2.3
Standard Conditions ....................................................................
..........................4.2 -1
4.2.4
Potential impacts .........................................................................
..........................4.2 -2
4.2.5
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................
..........................4.2 -8
4.2.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ...........................................
..........................4.2 -8
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table of Contents
Paqe
4.3
Air Quality ....................................................... .....................................................................
4.3 -1
4.3.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.3 -1
4.3.2
Significance Criteria .....................................................................
..........................4.3 -9
4.3.3
Standard Conditions ...................................................................
.........................4.3 -11
4.3.4
Potential Impacts ........................................................................
.........................4.3 -11
4.3.5
Mitigation Measures .................................................. ..........................................
4.3 -18
4.3.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................
.........................4.3 -18
4.4
Noise .........................................................................................................
..........................4.4 -1
4.4.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.4 -1
4.4.2
Significance Criteria ..... ..........................................................................................
4.4 -6
4.4.3
Standard Conditions ....................................................................
..........................4.4 -6
4.4.4
Potential Impacts .........................................................................
..........................4.4 -6
4.4.5
Mitigation Measures ................... --.. ..................................................................
4.4 -28
4.4.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................
.........................4.4 -29
4.5
Aesthetics ..................................................................................................
..........................4.5 -1
4.5.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.5 -2
4.5.2
Significance Criteria .....................................................................
..........................4.5 -2
4.5.3
Standard Conditions ....................................................................
..........................4.5 -2
4.5.4
Potential Impacts .........................................................................
..........................4 -5 -3
4.5.5
Mitigation Measures ...................................................................
.........................4.5 -30
4.5.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................
.........................4.5 -30
4.6
Drainage and Hydrology ...........................................................................
..........................4.6 -1
4.6.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.6 -1
4.6.2
Significance Criteria .....................................................................
..........................4.6 -3
4.6.3
Standard Conditions ....................................................................
..........................4.6 -4
4.6.4
Potential Impacts .........................................................................
..........................4.6 -5
4.6.5
Mitigation Measures ...................................................................
.........................4.6 -11
4.6.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................
.........................4.6 -12
4.7
Biological Resources .................................................................................
..........................4.7 -1
4.7.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.7 -1
4.7.2
Significance Criteria ....................................................................
.........................4.7 -10
4.7.3
Standard Conditions ...................................................................
.........................4.7 -11
4.7.4
Potential impacts ........................................................................
.........................4.7 -11
4.7.5
Mitigation Measures ...................................................................
.........................4.7 -19
4.7.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................
.........................4.7 -19
4.8
Public Health and Safety ........................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1
4.8.1
Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.8 -1
4.8.2
Significance Criteria .....................................................................
..........................4.8 -4
4.8.3
Standard Conditions ....................................................................
..........................4.8 -5
4.8.4
Potential Impacts .........................................................................
..........................4.8 -5
4.8.5
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................
..........................4.8 -7
4.8.6
Level of Significance after Mitigation ...........................................
..........................4.8 -7
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table of Contents
Page
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
M
4.9
Soils and Geology ................................................................................ ...............................
4.9 -1
4.9.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................
..........................4.9 -1
4.9.2 Significance Criteria . ........ .....................................................................................
4.9 -3
4.9.3 Standard Conditions .... ..........................................................................................
4.9 -3
4.9.4 Potential Impacts .........................................................................
..........................4.9 -4
4.9.5 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................
.........................4.9 -13
4.9.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .........................................
.........................4.9 -13
4.10
Cultural /Scientific Resources .................................... ...............................
.........................4.10 -1
4.10.1 Existing Conditions ...................................... ...............................
.........................4.10 -1
4.10.2 Significance Criteria .................................... ...............................
.........................4.10 -1
4.10.3 Standard Conditions .................................... ...............................
.........................4.10 -2
4.10.4 Potential Impacts ......................................... ...............................
.........................4.10 -2
4.10.5 Mitigation Measures ................................... ...............................
..........................4.10-4
4.10.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................... .........................................
4.10 -4
5.0
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT .....................................................
............................5 -1
5.1
Agriculture ..................................................................................................
............................5 -1
5.2
Population and Housing ..........................................................................
............................... 5 -1
5.3
Recreation ..................................................................................................
............................5 -2
5.4
Mineral Resources .....................................................................................
............................5 -2
5.5
Public Services .......................................................................................
............................... 5-2
5.6
Utilities ........................................................................................................
............................5 -3
6.0
IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
..... ............................6 -1
7.0
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ......................................... ............................7 -1
8.0
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ........................................................................... ............................8 -1
8.1
Definition of Growth- Inducing Impacts ......................................................
............................8 -1
8.2
Analysis of Growth- Inducing Impacts ........................................................
............................8 -1
8.3
Conclusion ..............................................................................................
............................... 8 -2
9.0
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ ............................9 -1
9.1
Definition of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................
............................... 9-1
9.2
Cumulative Projects ................................................................................
............................... 9 -1
9.3
Cumulative Impact Analysis ...................................................................
............................... 9-4
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
M
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
10.0 ALTERNATIVES .................
Table of Contents
Pa e
................................. .............................10 -1
10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ ...........................10
-1
10.2 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ....................... ............... ......................
..10 -3
10.3 Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................. ...........................10
-4
10.4 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Superior Alternative ........ . ..........................
10 -26
11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...................................... ...........................11
-1
12.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... ...........................12
-1
13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS.......
APPENDICES
A. Notice of Preparation /NOP Comment Letters
B. Construction Management Plan
C. Traffic Access Assessment
D. Air Quality Analysis
E Dock Vibration Analysis
F. NoiseNibration Impact Analysis
G. Understanding Perspective
H. Biological Resources Assessment
I. Eelgrass Survey
J. Wetlands Determination
13 -1
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
iv
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
AERIE PA2005 -196
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
Page
3 -1
Regional Map ....................................................................................................... ...............................
3 -3
3 -2
Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... ...............................
3-4
3 -3
Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -5
3-4
Existing General Plan .............................................................................................. ............................3
-8
3 -5
Existing Zoning ................. ...................................................................................................................
3 -9
3-6
Site Plan .............................................................................................................. ...............................
3-13
3 -7
Sub - Basement Plan ............................................................................................... ...........................3
-14
3-8
Basement Plan ....................................................................................................... ...........................3
-15
3-9
First Floor Plan ................................................................................................... ...............................
3 -16
3 -10
Second Floor Plan ............................................................. ................................................................
3 -17
3 -11
Third Floor Plan .................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -17
3-12
Fourth Floor Plan ................................................................................................ ...............................
3 -19
3 -13
Cross Sections A -A ............................................................................................ ...............................
3 -20
3 -14
Cross Sections B -B ............................................................................................ ...............................
3-21
3 -15
South and West Elevations .................................................................................... ...........................3
-22
3 -16
North and East Elevations .................................................................................. ...............................
3 -23
3 -17
Proposed Dock Plan ........................................................................................... ...............................
3 -25
4.4 -1
Demolition Noise Contours .................................................................................... .........................4.4
-10
4.4 -2
Caisson Drilling Noise contours ............................................................................ .........................4.4
-12
4.4 -3
Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4
-13
4.4-4
Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4
-14
4.4 -5
Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4
-15
4.4-6
Concrete Pouring Noise Contours ........................................................................ .........................4.4
-17
4.4 -7
First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork .............. .........................4.4
-18
4.4 -8
Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork .................. ......................
4.4 -19
4.4 -9
Construction Noise Levels occurring Over the Construction Period .................... .........................4.4
-21
4.5 -1
Expanded View Corridor from Ocean Avenue ....................................................... ..........................4.5
-5
4.5 -2
Visual Simulation Key Map .... .................................................................................................... .......
4.5-6
4.5 -3
Visual Simulation V01 — Bayside Drive Beach ...................................................... ..........................4.5
-7
4.5-4
Visual Simulation V02 — Channel Road Beach ..................................................... ..........................4.5
-9
4.5 -5
Visual Simulation V03 — Camation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard ............................. .........................4.5
-10
4.5-6
Visual Simulation VO4 — Ocean Boulevard View Corridor .................................... .........................4.5
-11
4.5 -7
Visual Simulation V08 — Carnation Avenue .......................................................... .........................4.5
-13
4.5 -8
Visual Simulation V09 — Ocean Boulevard ........................................................... .........................4.5
-14
4.5-9
Visual Simulation V05 — Begonia Park/Lower Bench ........................................... .........................4.5
-15
4.5 -10
Visual Simulation V06 — Begonia Park/Upper Bench ........................................... .........................4.5
-16
4.5 -11
Visual Simulation V07 — Begonia Park/Comer Begonia Avenue and First Avenue .....................4.5
-18
4.5 -12
Visual Simulation V16 — Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive ....................................... .........................4.5
-19
4.5 -13
Visual Simulation V10 — Kayak 1 .......................................................................... .........................4.5
-20
4.5 -13
Visual Simulation V11 — Kayak 2 .......................................................................... .........................4.5
-21
4.5 -15
Visual Simulation V12 — Kayak 3 .......................................................................... .........................4.5
-23
4.5 -16
Visual Simulation V17 — Kayak 4 .......................................................................... .........................4.5
-24
4.5 -17
Visual Simulation V13— Channel 1 ....................................................................... .........................4.5
-26
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
List of Exhibits
(Continued)
4.5-18 Visual Simulation V14 —Channel 2 .. ...............................
4.5-19 Visual Simulation V15 —Channel 3 .. ...............................
Table of Contents
Paae
........ 4.5 -27
.............. 4.5 -28
4.6 -1
Existing Hydrology .................................................................................................. ..........................4.6
-2
4.6 -2
Post - Development Hydrology... .......................................................................................................
4.6-7
4.9 -1
Flood -Tide and Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns ............................................................... .........................4.9
-12
9 -1
Cumulative Visual Impact— Begonia Park/Upper Bench ...................................... ...........................9
-11
9 -2
Cumulative Visual Impact — BegoniaPark/Lower Bench ...................................... ...........................9
-12
9 -3
Cumulative Visual Impact — Begonia Park ................................ ........................................................
9 -13
10 -1
Reduced Density — 3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units ............................ ...........................10
-7
10-2
Existing Zoning Alternative 3A — Basement Plan ................................................. ..........................10
-15
10 -3
Existing Zoning Alternative — First Floor Plan ....................................................... ..........................10
-16
10-4
Existing Zoning Alternative — Second Floor Plan .................................................. ..........................10
-17
10 -5
Existing Zoning Alternative — Third Floor Plan ...................................................... ..........................10
-18
10-6
Existing Zoning Alternative — Fourth Floor Plan ................................................... ..........................10
-19
10 -7
Existing Zoning Alternative 3B — Basement Plan ................................................. ..........................10
-21
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
AERIE PA2005 -196
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
LIST OF TABLES
Table of Contents
Paqe
1 -1
Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................1
-6
2 -1
List of Potential Responsible Agencies ................................................................... ............................2
-3
3 -1
Project Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................... ...........................3
-12
3 -2
Proposed Construction Phasing ............................................................................. ...........................3
-27
4.1 -1
General Plan Policy Analysis .................................................................................. ..........................4.1
-8
4.1 -2
Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Policy Analysis ................................................... .........................4.1
-19
4.1 -3
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Consistency Analysis .......... .........................4.1
-41
4.2 -1
Potential Construction - Related Trip Generation .................................................... ..........................4.2
-2
4.2 -2
Net Change in Traffic Generation ......................................................................... ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -3
Proposed Off - Street Parking Requirements .......................................................... ..........................4.2
-7
4.3 -1
Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants .......................... ..........................4.3
-4
4.3 -2
Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ............... ..........................4.3
-5
4.3 -3
Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa/Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations .. ..........................4.3
-7
4.3-4
Daily Operational Emissions ................................................................................ .........................4.3
-14
4.4 -1
Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ....................................... ..........................4.4
-1
4.4 -2
City of Newport Beach Noise Standards .............................................................. ..........................4.4
-3
4.4 -3
Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................ ..........................4.4
-4
4.4-4
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance) ........... ..........................4.4
-5
4.4 -5
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Structural Damage) ........... ..........................4.4
-5
4.4-6
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................................... ..........................4.4
-8
4.4 -7
Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) .................................. .........................4.4
-20
4.4 -8
Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences ........... .........................4.4
-23
4.4 -9
Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure ............... .........................4.4
-24
4.4 -10
Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels ........ ..........................4.4
-5
4.6 -1
Existing Hydrology ................................................................................................. ..........................4.6
-1
4.6 -2
Water Quality Regulatory Agencies ..................................................................... ..........................4.6
-3
4.6-3
Post - Development Hydrology ............................................................................... ..........................4.6
-8
4.7 -1
Special Status Plants ............................................................................................. ..........................4.7
-2
4.7 -2
Special Status Marine Species ............................................................................. ..........................4.7
-9
4.8 -1
Standard Environmental Records Sources .......................................................... ..........................4.8
-1
4.8 -2
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Summary ................................................ ..........................4.8
-2
4.8-3
Lead Based Paint (LBP) Summary ....................................................................... ..........................4.8
-3
4.8-4
Results of Database Review ................................................................................. ..........................4.8
-4
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
vii
Aerie PA200 5-196
Draft Environmental
List of Table
(Continued)
Table of Contents
Page
4.9 -1 Regional Active Fault Parameters ........................................................................ ..........................4.9 -5
4.9 -2 Results of the Stability Analysis ........................................................................... ..........................4.9 -7
4.9 -3 Selected Wind Conditions for Wind Wave Predictions ....................................... ..........................4.9 -9
4.9-4 Wind Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting From Typical and Extreme
WNW -NNW and SSE -S Winds ............................................................................ ..........................4.9 -9
4.9 -5 Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting From Typical and Extreme
SSE and SSW Swell Conditions Offshore ......................................................... .........................4.9 -10
9 -1 Related Projects List ............................................................................................... ............................9 -2
10 -1 Summary of Project .............................................................................................. ..........................10 -27
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
viii
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
CHAPTER 1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Description of the Proposed Project
1.1.1 Project Location
1.0 — Executive
The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County.
Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the
north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, in unincorporated Orange County, is located southeast of
the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana
River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises
the southern boundary of the City.
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. 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.
1.1.2 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. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential
structures (i.e., 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence) that currently occupy the site.
The total gross floor area will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living floor area (29,426 square
feet), common recreational areas (2,987 square feet), storage areas (5,943 square feet), parking (13,234
square feet), and circulation and mechanical areas (10,119 square feet). In addition, the existing docks
will be replaced with an eight (8) slip dock and one (1) guest side tie dock. The new docks will consist of
timber construction and 19 new concrete guide piles, and the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be
replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. 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.
The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture design criteria. As a result,
the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements (e.g., natural
ventilation system, gray water retention for property irrigation, solar domestic hot water and pool hearing,
solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity, etc.) that enhance the project design, reduce the amount
of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment.
In addition, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed
project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction
equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management
(e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery
requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air
quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring);
and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water
quality control and environmental protection measures).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 1 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
1.0 — Executive
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 (CA2005 -009)
Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882)
Modification Permit (MD2005 -067)
Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002)
1.1.3 Project Phasing
The applicant is proposing to construct the entire project in four construction phases over a period of 32
months.
1.1.4 Project Objectives
Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have
been identified by the project applicant.
To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a
sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design
which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the
harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in
Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project
Objective 4.
2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year
old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design
principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b)
the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape
enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well
as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding
the new wiring.
3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with
an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving,
sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water
quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and /or
improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable
regulations.
4. To provide amenities deemed important by the developer to potential purchasers of
condominium units, including a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and
common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center.
5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street
parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit
project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the
number of resident and guest parking required for the project.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 1 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
1.0 — Executive
To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public
vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing
public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view
corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on
Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently
obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead
wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking
fountain at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public
viewing experience.
To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible
development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b)
incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is
within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject
to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern,
organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff,
and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the
bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation.
8. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height
on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards.
1.2 Alternatives
1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of
the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of
the alternatives. Chapter 10 sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them
as required by CEQA. Several alternative development scenarios have been identified as a means of
reducing potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. These
alternatives include:
No Project/No Development
Alternative Site
Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences
Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project
Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading
1.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Chapter 10 describes the criteria that were used to select those alternatives for detailed analysis and to
screen others from further detailed consideration. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the
environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the proposed
project. The No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the two potentially significant project -
related impacts (construction noise and paleontology) identified in Chapter 4.0. The remaining alternatives
would reduce to some extent, the degree of traffic and air quality impacts, which were determined to be
less than significant for the proposed project. In addition, although the duration of construction noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 1 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive
would be significantly reduced as a result of reduced grading in the 3, 5, and 8 -unit alternatives, the
construction noise associated with each alternative could not be mitigated and would remain significant
and unavoidable. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Alternative 3A, the other alternatives would
not result in the benefits derived form project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles
creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch
basin). Finally, all or portions of several project objectives would not be realized, including state -of- the-art
energy saving conservation features and the provision of recreation amenities. Based on the potential
environmental effects and the ability to meet the project objectives, existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple Family
Alternative A is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative of the alternatives considered as a
result of improvements that ameliorate existing undesirable environmental conditions (e.g., provision of
adequate capacity in the existing deficient storm drain, removal of the unsightly overhead utility poles,
etc.). Although Alternative B further reduces grading and, to some degree, the duration of construction
noise, the potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable as with all of the alternatives and
project objectives would not be achieved to the same degree as compared to Alternative A. Furthermore,
none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy conservation systems would be included
in the single - family (i.e., 3 dwelling units), or 5 -unt and 8 -unit Alternative B design alternatives; thus, the
environmental benefits would not accrue to those alternatives.
1.3 Areas of Controversy
The areas of controversy identified during the scoping process and at public hearings conducted prior to
the preparation of the EIR, are addressed in the EIR and include:
• Predominant Line of Existing Development
• Neighborhood Compatibility
• Site Geology
Docks
Pubic Views
• Access to Parking
• Bluff Vegetation
• Noise
• Traffic
1.4 Issues to be Resolved
The environmental analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 and Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR indicate that
several potential impacts were identified; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have
been included to reduce the potential significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. All of the
potentially significant impacts except for noise will be reduced to a less than significant level with the
implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Chapter 4.0 of this document. In addition,
several recommendations have also been included in this document to address other impacts resulting
from project implementation, which have been determined to be less than significant, to eliminate or
further reduce those adverse effects. Because construction noise impacts cannot be reduced to a less
than significant level, the Newport Beach City Council must adopt a statement of overriding
considerations prior to taking final action to approve the proposed Aerie project.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 14
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
1.5 Impact Summary Table
1.0 — Executive
Table 1 -1 summarizes the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The table also provides a
summary of the potential impacts found to be less than significant, and which do not require mitigation.
Each environmental resource area covered in the main text is summarized. Also, impacts found to be
significant are listed along with the proposed mitigation measures. The residual impact after application
of mitigation measures is also indicated for each significant impact.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 1 -5
r
d
4
H
m
0
N
a
e
N
U
@
Q
E
O
E
E
7
U
C �
@
o
m
C
Fn
O y
j Q
J
rycry
U
C
O
m
N
N
J
c
C
O
to
N
N
J
°c
crS cc�`m
°, ra m
C
m T �R v .0 m
,a@i
.3 n E
@
E a nJ m
a E d d>
Ao E m°-
0 a
'Om
'v
p� m J m
o- @ o. w 'w
m
c
Z s c:a ° Q
my �m�C
Uc axm
mES
m
$
mo
0, 0
m
N
VN N @>
.L.. N u@ m
C
m U
m
m
do $c@
J
U N m
T @ h'
a _
9 8
Si
@
E
@ > ml
U 'p c V @
E S m e `o
O
N€ p N
m
c m
0 m a N a
m m c
2
O
0
y
J
y w
= 0 U (9 JL-r
d 0 t
@L N nm
._�
a
Lm..
°5
mM ''m
@v
cv mm
p 9 N
NJja�
p @
d(J E N J
r J L
@
p�
cO
O
Z � Nd
r C
N
m
E y,
C N m N
o m d r
�u
C N
@E
pO
d tnU 0 5
>�n>c�
n w
8 0
J
Gc
O
F
M
N N
NUm
C�
v v v
-0 m@
OF
OF
z° E
y w y
mEm
4.9 m`
E "@' N L2 Ip0
�.p
O_ O 6 c c
L c�N
'� m 0
Ti i230==
2,9 13 ° D)
a r
C J
N m
8�
N U
C r� 2 N m
(l
o
Hp s@
n
.0 Is 3
o LiJ' a
0 3 -0
0
s
a- Z° E m
c p_p yY
U
U ryry �yn t E
O
Ol D. c V
U
a
U N
ti° °o.3 H"'
m m
LdaoNo
J c
E
c
NN!s CpY'yy��
a
CNV?IO@
m an
@
'O m ma
LUU '@
o
O
d
L R O h m m
o. O
L
m
Ur'OO O)�
E = E
J
N
a�
p
o -i2U�c
-m�
0 m NN
�m�cdm
O> d L
°
c ME_
a
ac�.Lm.Uc
°m E :E:E'
EmL
c
8.. msL G §.c
E
0 C S
b m m
C
c
M E m m@
> m
0o= E
oy
AO m0
F UO EWME 8
o2 &
a 0 p N N
cd'od>;E
c m E
c t 0 c U c
N _m
na p c F N
0 m
p C O e
0-
U',mO -dO-LM
m $ U F E
T w m h O
O � m« 12
C 6$ 0 Jq
�BUU�°E
c @
3 mmm3
c E 0 u
o`o c MO 8
O E. a
@ 8 C O
y m C
pm ny
.Es $
p J c O
m L
m m mry p N
d 0
00 a.-
p C'
9 E U C
Mm 8
n0P
C ° m V > m
84- ow m L
mm Bow= U=
m' a nw N
E c E
.92 ° -E O
m m
°0 0 000
� o m o o m
p 'V
C C J C y L
Qa — 03
8 m m 0 c
m O @ V
L N 6
J W
d m N 8
mu °U v�
@ C O L y C
0 m r O
a €on�om
d C N N U
a'- N m � m
� 0 m E E
D °m 00c
U L
m 0 c c m @
c r L m E>
N m c M
d
6 d � 2
C C d O C
m J 6 m 0
E��Ucc
O N U 0
N L C m c c
C
cp_£E``om
8 O N N
J c 0- m c n
o° U J o c
UEp�map
¢8z0. -0
U
Z @
m
m �
O
E3o
c � t
C � R
i
Qo
111 N
�a
0 C
A
a
m
O
4
'm
Q
u
c c
� o
=m
c
N �
O y
d
J
c
K
c
a
�
d
L_
N
N
d
J
.1O
Ed
d N yy C O M j
d yA $ —
C C
=
C
d
fi
O N
UKm
�L �E; ;=
o,E d o-0 d
o �
aa
M d
rn
L EE
d O
>a d d o .o 0 a E
c
monv
n
l
a� d
(=o ,
.°~
a
wN
m
y - ?
z
N
do
D?,a
.9�
c
Q>
n
d O
O.
N 0d d
o
N j
�
-
'
L ' o n O
o c
o
a
r> m
�om°
o ° �
NUC jOCN
c
Lrmo�
.
n
°iE
L2
�O
'Y
Owoc
gE
u
Q-
`2C
yt�rnd
c�n mc i9
-
o t
�d (n
�` 8
moct� o
c
aC
u°o
a2
M4-
d d
a cE
o o
D
L d �
a$ o rn
t m
c E `
C
oo
d
U
C
d
> c o mc
0 n O a
� E t >>
d U d m
`o d
r
o c
�
mdOm °
o°c
On n
d
°�o°� 0 .Xa
C a_C m
c pm
d_
E
d C LIco
.0
, O O L C
d L
p (�0
m d T
J N N
r a
C
O
U 3 v
N N
N
N L
0,6
.MW
. y
wus>c,o
'E
m L h E A d r y d
Mam
am
3 2L
= cc
mr3 `d j
Na y
c
na 2
8 0
cE
ySc pN a
oC 3V wO
$U �a E
0
'-C
O >' 0
Od W
3
m— T
C
0
>
no d
C O)
d d'-
o
I
ad C
On
=
d o o
�.y
v
c d u 3
o N o
c
m
u
d
d c o
m
w do Ycd
a.- i wAc i
M
L° mm acu
doi
o
E= U
= ° u d �.d 0m
nm'
�
ac td
g7
m
d d
00Nda
- c
` rn=do
Q d
o cN
dc u -c c oc og d0 N
o
FmB
-3
a d =
`O
c 3 -8
d J c d
d
N y
N o
Ot 8�
d a MT
« Mo.
d J d
da �M
n To o
d
a
L 'fir
N 00 U
y d E d
U
d — X
d
6
E
3 d
—
m
N00
N O O °
16 3 5 3
�
L 3
0
d c 3
CL
N d 0
m -> `o
L A
ma_
5 m= $
a �yo
m a d .6
E TL
a
�amrn
c d
Mn U C d
- d O A
U
o m
Km
mr
S30
._dZN
CAL
C �
Q N
�a
O e
d
I-
O!
W
m
a
0
0
N
a
m
m
Q
u
c c
U o
E a
C O1
Otr
N ^�
O y
;a
m
J
OD�OW C�O
0 -6 Eo --a
N
6
c
mo o
C
¢m D
g2 o
co o �
yy
_
a d a o 0 = £ o
Eoo0O'B
`.a
i ma 00
Oc
o os ym
a x o
ty
_n
Ma c "
rn
y
o
y
12
T o
m 10 m Lp O = c m m c
E
Y m n w Y
d o a
E°
E
=w E
0a
3a
— dE "`o C R
oo c o
�
y
3$ y � 0 E
o$
y
`
«
>
FY
:E
>nONO N
M=.
O
Mm5
ss
0�aa.m.
U
d CN
dy O
i
`
n w «n `w
N
o n '
1Ec
m o d O
`
{ do oa
y j d3 CN
0-6 M
p
p
w y 00
pp
nOj9
C y - -0
c
UNCdi
yOU
N
C
d^ c L- m a A t r
a m
Eaao?c
2 Q 2
c0
o$M°
U o
Um
� � a ' r
w£
c>o`M
o o
oo 2-9
dW +c 0
'
m
y
c g m o
°
> o a
e c d
oa
� yrno � o _`
C oN
` co�
N tU
acc
m!R 2; -io
a s y5 y
o1
/
J c E C N y
0.
=O 0
U ' y
C y O
O
t a
0 c
1yi�
y
> � y
U o =
"
9 0F 2`¢
i N
y
O O D
: a
OccOCd W 0=.
O
S O
a
o LU
'n
J
LO
dEo com�
ynmy Y.S
.
o
aL ?ym
aKd-
d
o
°
m = c 8
3..
NYN n
E
ON�6[�h
c
'
p
¢nma�yC�
�y
e
U)
U
6
E
m
c
v
0
a
ro
y
n
T
a
U
o
� m
m
mr
n$a
tO Z N
C � t
�a
o�
m
Q
M
a
Q
N
O
N
a
c
Q
U
C p
U.-
A
C d
O �
m
J
W
N
N
N
m
J
trio
c
c
o�°icE
mao'
a
m' w°
Um
Nc
0n -@ E
°
mOO om
y
S
'a
E
Q�
E
N
Ca p
wo ' E
N n m a
CN
y
E"
at�
yy
m E O E
L c
2•
w
'% F
am t
W
m E°
N 3
L
V
O O F
c
N m
J O
�C_ d a
m m
O
N
'
O
N U
m
� Z Oa D
T N Z § m i C
.m ?•
y
E
m
°
a
>
>i�
nm
Ecmp �0.
@
��NL°c
1 .2
m.
a
E Mma n- "
:mU
?m
o
i
0
d
a
r?
`maNN
aO00
o
r..
pE
2 L0
c
rno t
�c4 Tn K
m a
N m m m
. i
.0
amCp
3y
m
t N i
O
N
m
O 3
Q O
d m
d m
m
m m
a
m m o A
m m
m
a
my
>
` udo
E3N
r
m
O
m
m
m m
c
y U n ryry
(E/l m m (J L 6
a
m
02
rL�'a�
O
4.2
mca
«
m
$y
a
cyi0t>1c
cO
> U
tumao
sm c .—N
m
0
`oya
am
� yVo
Em m
yo2
na oE.g„M
m ma 'E
c
v
>
r
QEami
.c°3 am
Qo
Q`o
=>�$
Q�3mm''$m
o
m E
_ aNamiH
m
a5m
'Sy ma s'�a�?a dva
as o.«
d =�
tom
c`�a5 >�n`m8x
N
y
co
y
V
y
y
E y 3
H U 2
x'�mao
p 3 a m n E m m aCn m
—.c nEi
¢ N a
ti
v
d
E a
w
N
ai
y
E Im
.
'62
T N
N
C
'.0
S-0
c E
0
m m
a�
d
x
m'm
m
C N
m CN
6
C J L
E
° n
N
is
N c
a
� o
c
m
o m E
c m
m
ai$
a
c m O
A'C
C m
_
m H c
.00
-E2 C
Edo
o m m
C t
Z aR1
m�
E3o
m �
Qh
l� N
�a
o�
m
a
a
a
us
O
N
a
e
Q
U
C C
O
4 j0
y �
O d
> Q
J
�
C
C
O
co
oocmmoomc8
?�cc=
Tg.T
cm Ed
mEcEtrmaoa
0 LO
o2o
'ay
ct
°-c om
me E'a mac
Z h E m
EaW
c '.�-
E
a�o
L°
w mc�mm Ea
E a 2 o
o W° c a
do 4'w oCOWE
°
c�c°im
N
TE
5
"oa c'0
E m L W c v
.°"� W 20 WE d
°
`00
$
�rvW w-ac
>002°
sN-
Z'O
C
o
a
0 E C
y >2 0 w '
>
o9
om .
c
oEm °
m
t
N
m N N O E
6 C 'L
-
E
a
N
W
wa
L C c U WW a
`
U) 0
C' C .s O-S
N O
N
N
O i
0 t5 N> W
O
L
16 75
O
_
o
.°
aO a N
L
C= C a
S
E$ m m `
2 C
v �
W C
D
g
Ec
w EccmW
o2
cm- -' E2
o" aono WPrm
c
m9 w 0—
m0
E 80,6
ma
mma
a0
E
E
c
c
c
c
c°
o 3 °cE°
Z
°O
C
— .
omc
O a
2 F
c O C2=
c
' ~
N
C N
L E
p
�
U
U L
V
°
O C
d
N - O
> N E j O -
- L O
O
> >
O a C
p
T
C
E N N
i
w
N fn So .2 0
w
0
Q c adn ELo H`O
4
v
4
v v
a
i
mc8�
O aN
aQad�
N
6 W
U a N
W
_ 0
N 'y
W d TD
N H E
E
-
o W a
a
a N N O U
u
o E
a
m m
v
E
o y d
o
q
m Q�Q y
?L 3
C...
NOL
y
0 a.2 L Orn
°
t o 3
a
o ui REP
S ? ry N
N W W
W U W a C
N N W
m m o m a
E
am
Hw0-Ern
OZ o c
ZO a`o 'w
U
o
� m
m
U t
W O
n am
N Z N
d � U
C � W
eon
+C d
O�
W
W
W
a
rn
0
N
a
e
Q
U
C C
U
A
FOE
O y
>
J
c
N
�
N
N
m
J
N C N
C C 'S
° m
U3 >
Sm O yy
O O E 0- C d d
E A "
? o O c 3 c
m °
A p L E
N 0
0
x m - y e
o � ca
n Vo o°ivt p OmocU
�
o •a
c
.=
o m
°
E o � m
0 w n° a w
n awc� y `
<
Ed 0.-
4 d N E n oai E drnw@ E>
w'>n$a0
-
m > p
t °M-0 Q o=
a c
m° E N y
y?
L E a c n c O n y N m a m c m
d !9 y
O
0 0 y c
-FO; .? m° c o nn > C V =-- m-
`m
E0o
.
Eo -$ O aPi
E N
�U3 _ yNY
°
n
8t m
m
N
U
YUCj`
0 a�{Em
O°aO9
c
C $L°
'Ow «
O C O�O a
OUEV O 6
2 c d v c 2 NNm 01
m ° - c m
c U
dLd co WE
>E "'amm�pc�mN�o�O'�w
«m
-2°U t80 -m
wsti° $ o m ZnS
-
Cr y O p Oam
O
« 2ow- > E d
° N ° m m LC
O N 0
N
— N
o O O OO m N V
N
O d _ y m
N ` m m
rad a c $ c °
` a
Q d E = ° c � m = ao m o M c
.c v
,,.o m. mUcp .� py2d
ac v m j
d 'a d a U . .. d> C m
Q
ZE Y vNE
` .c.d.y m m
m H
m`d,N , c e ' m o
ad rnc'2
cmmmaC
U'tc-
�coB gE cK' Na ° dQ
m �'O O ai �
E > t t 8:5 8 ¢ 3 o m c' v E d8 o> E
E c� m
m d C v y
m > - - m
E'r�
m
ETi o+g
ryc
T = y m
p.4 'o wm
c L° O v m
m a d
>L«.�d
8 y`o EE
jOL
a
E 'a
m
C d N a d d
O$ a C p
E
w
°Yn 2Q
w
> m 2M-2c
E, 0 4
Q c
c E E
E
°
c c y U
O
m $ o a m p
E c N
N Ea MN
«c
�0
ON ONry
L LU C O
N o nC L
d
m m 2 a `o
O V O a U O
d O U m O U
U
C t
0
m
m �
0
E3o
Z N
� I
Crnm
W �`+
�a
m
� m
Q
a
a
m
U
O
t4
I
O
�O G
rn m
o�
N
awG
¢O
U
C C
U o
A
C rn
O
N �
O y
> Q
J
C
M
C
tT
(n
C
m
N
d
J
ryC
0
C
O
N
C
m
$
N
d
J
0 m C y
m 0« O j N d T
N3 d
u >$ a N O
Go
C
O
> m` p y 0
00
y
.L..
NyO
>
O E U
3 N
N
m 7-
O
9 U
m c d m d o
_
L O C
c 3 m m o N o E l m
ado
a-
0
w c
000
Ea-Q aci
-0
N-aOw
Ox
o u
'
T o
dE mU odyN'a
>�a'anw
f`
o E a E a£
o a s
-5
E N m a« -
=c°
`c° m
y y
m m
i 6 0
t J N
N
y -6
�L o t o
N°`
c E m E >
y O
O
O ° m
L2o'
° N
a 3
Q Oc.>°
o « 3 t
�` mEo a z
m c a
N m
•a - 0 N$E-N
m o
as "Um
m o t E a
Q3oo
c o °
ra
o '- o m a m
v am
m�il �
o
a dm
p ° arnm vN a
?
C
°
m y
0
o Q N, m-
$
C Qa«
vd
!m
9
-
E
m a o> > L
m m m
E d
° BE
m
xmN
a
d`
m
m m E d
�
N -
0
N
Z $ E
LLam
mdN
m oC $
°
�ti "a9'i
n
d15 E co
0c0n
f rr m n� T
a
m
o
°
oo
E 'am apo1a �
m
� om Q 8 m 2 E
mig
t o°N
Y
aN com - oO
iF
. d :$°NacOv irc o c
E
_£U
Sa a
A m
UoO'l
-6 c°N
'cai
o � o
N
A U
(C
LOm
0m —
O7 m .2-
m m j
�tyU
N
ig 2 N
.iCc
N
° j S�
°M
a% nrnc
m
Q`-a
o N aaa
Q$O
Q aU 0m Q$Nm
eb
m
d� om'>
Aa'
e
'a
'�*
v a v v
�
y w (n �
M2
X 0 00
N N
N m o a
C
N m
N a
E
O N
E �m
V
£ 8 c3
amor
64-
!
4:2
- °
Eoa
_ c
m
E
E m c m
L
a!3
N m
m
$4�
N m
$ J
E
... N Q
r N L S
�j
y
5
mN
a C
a C m L
s q
aa0
E
0p6J3
CO
CO
V
d
o
O G Co
°N
3 0
'
Eo
« a
aci ai
m?a
aci 0
0 Ei2am`
amC
a
a 3
N -�.-A
E m'm
E wo d $'G
w y
�yO-dd
ma
dao�v
a e 5
a 3 rn:s
U
'C =
r m
iz
m
m
E3o
Z N_
G �
Ern m
>o
W t`+
�a
O c
m
a
U
a
r°
m
O
N
a
c
u
c c
u o
w �
c m
o
0
iQ
m
J
h
m
n
c
m
5
J
U
L
a
y
c
m
�
J
E
a
Z
o > D
o
N
`L, fL, m 5 O N C N C O
O
.0.
m°
ma(7Hrn Eom
xdz Em
d
FLT ° : m-M
c._Ac m m
or °�c
E
L
�2°-' rn... ao. O1
ono °c >oEa cn 02 Ui es
U
a m E
O
fm a. ° a
N C
m
OI
o °- D WM o N
lU t— y N> ._ N N
C
o_OU N° a? U<
°
X:R S m
E
� 3 .9 am � c - Ma°c
ym0ZO °ate
mss °1w1pp
°c
70 cmyey�
O C— M m C 2
D N m m 0
D
U N N CI O° E D y
.8 y C
.,
p' N D U O
O
" c N_ o° 2 o m m
0
i
L O) d (0'10 o 2
mdc ay Lm.�
ap M N «j N
5 a _
d
T U m O N C N o N
C'6 0
1x�
c
N
v
4021$
Nt�
°°
•m
o m.0 m 0 m o
a o.
C.co o m N D
m o m c
c
o o t m w
•c = m m m,a
W
am am > Q
N C C N U `.' N 7
Ti
("p •_ C
E° M15
O
d
fC 2 o L ° a 1 ..�
c
._
o0 °
E L T
N D N N J
N
(0
�L
7
°Er yN
N° 0. N [0 N N N
aco
T
me
E mw >Ny Z•vaNao
o.ca
a
�aL°oa
aiK oaA ago
Ecmcm
�'m
ooy
Dva
v
°
- NEN'a90
�EoKm -•
=yy
O U'O N° N d m U'C
crucn
> g N L O
'C
of
E
ni
V
o�:: o >yD
N m �:� d N
adma.E m ¢Sy M
E= rL-�z
a
o
€?I�:c maU c2�
O] d)
f)l 6
O
m
m
N
v v
v v
m y
N
r' r
V Q
c a a
o o�
o m c m 00
Em?
3Emm
�m -`mom rn�
oyc
EEp°im
cF CD M
> m
o o E x E
m_ 8 E
o
y
vmo
„FSp2o
y
E m 0moco
Trym
rn
0. -Cm3_
U'm0N0
`
o o
m cm t o D
NN �1
am -,
N
J � cy"
C
a o,
-m s
x _ N
c a E ti o
oO
m
E
>
n
NE N
S
D
3 n3 m >w
a°
C
flm��u T1�Cp5
o-ot0
°0Em
`o 'c-Mo CT��
3m
•�
O'w mE
YNStEw
D °mm 0M 0�
o
o
$ .c2
a°
N c0
a
�mD>MEm
O
c
1p mC7D o
LLmLy�° do
2Do`
'n2mO
OD 6Cm'-
00 M Q�03
.y$mE
au
Oa
°i°$EOm
02
OM 2
€D a
"poly
cmE'R
LL9t.0QZE
rn`'nm
ELL mJ� °So
a w d o
L
N y °N S mp� M
a m m W= ai T!E
5 E a c
c m'oi
Q c�52
L m D 0 U D
HrnmEm�
o c Dc
Z�mi a`o M.
U
o
m
co
m
Zoo o
MZN
c 2
us
c ^�
c00
UI "1
�a
0
Q
Or
a
rn
0
N
R
d
U
C C
u
w m
c m
O
IN/1
J
O
(n
N
J
a
ad d Om m0y OT
NCL NJ a
L V
ON CLC 0O.O0
0_m
m =
N
a a0m y OOI U
m d>~ T 'C 0
" O
d ,n0
L
nT aOd
�6 'N
a N C N C d N 0 am d
N N
D m9
NO.a
as
Cm .CN
d
mC0 Udrd� -Nm°
Od4> -i. Nmd NCa (LJw
O
N
E N O
0 m
N 0 O d N
K
C t
m p
�m
d°x2uo E O
yy Yai
c �
°2 mow~
oa
_
—mc� m —Jw Nmam a a;` ° od 0av N °so
'00 0 m o
mNami�QEm Eoam�md
ca
m
?.�£m��ac?Q a02 nNa `ot `mm .dcaLL °omEs.v
08m QU03U y'C U' N�.�O
Nch
mt0
d
0
Nam..UU CO'J N�L.c O'm 0L
'3U
�LQ
JO OIC ONC O)�VJm� N COrNN
-M
a0> CO
'Fam
o
m
dm oa Um'2¢Nc�a$ ca�maaE tm�- m:o
Nma 3:- dv
8 ca ma_2N
JCm
M 229
m
0)�
d
E$aU y>y °om—at 00
aciLL
Nnm
y�a�mm omm Nm0 Na3C CNj
mE�
Ol
pCLpat y�'3wm
dNN"
0 N� C OO A Z M m a a m C E C> m 10 m O a 8 N m d
0 0
N d
mmy��a
L 0 (J
ac m2o0 , °'ai um Emd.m LO, o w c°
M m
mr2 .oaa
ao'd
a$L.°
,sueO cLL E' Ea N.o Mm L- d f-a;m m..oymcot
v N a a �. C E m N
army
E 0
d E
$�caa
U'O O m k> m C m U V N
N N N y N N=
o, mm�o -o.ymy md�a m_o maT$'poomya
9 y
o.TQ
me Jm me >..o�E mom —ma 0. Q�'�o m.oa
U
mE
m` Q 0 U > � � a 2 m m M N N m w_ N
Gm
o N Q IJ/1 w
o c
UUy y
wg
d d
HaE
d
aJ00o2
md d«
12 — C
J N
N... >
T L an d J" a
E 0 0
l0 m a Y O >
T O C L
> m
�
m N dY
Eami2m
noao>'`m
m N N cU�
Q d
m o
O
dN O
d N U
m m
=
m o- aoimdE
m m
2'L'
m
�.i NyEaN
aymm 0
aN�mC
MM
m
d a m •.•
°p t
m m E .c
ow,
C
o�nN ami
0 J U U .-
m �l O d m
d
d N Qy 6'0 j
O L m O
a
o r, m C`
a
C m N
o J d > m o
m
m
H C$
a m N
> N N O.m=-
a d m N m 0
c mc,oy
mNn
o E m m
CZ c
U- d 0 C N d
0
0 a£ m
0
coEompm
--
ao;amy
mm"
NmOa O.
mdlk
�Lam�cc
¢�amE
U
O �
m
al
U t:
m O
QQ01
ip Z N
C � U
d
W N
�a
� c
m
r
a
a
0
a
0
0
N
CL
G
d
Q
u
c c
U
m
C 01
01 :.
N
O y
>a
d
J
o '_� LL
E C
a
C m O
N
O d
s
o
-
.0
d
a a
ff
.. o Ez
c cr
a
2 m
°
� _d
E
m`Um0� '
,
$O U m
d 2n
N a00
3'c0
O
OEOZ
�D -(Lw 9
��d
'
W
'da$
9>
°
.a OM C
o- .
Oom°mcE
L _ O
tC
c d- C EC m- W
_
d
m
d
M
no—
NTdQ
ENOI1dOy2-
Ow".6-mN O) «CLd
�'O«
>0
Od
n
O
d+
N` N C
$ d O
pd LL E N N
J
O d
E`o
m
`=
d . Z n E `N d
yU -
°Na �EvE
c r a 8°° E^ d =°
T d
.1dc `off
d a
E4x
m u d
r m
d
w
°
V N
-
d d
m c j m
T
N L
d
V
d
TUU>i�dd dm N
AE o
am ' w'�
d d w m0130
° Nw
« E- m
o. >o a
C w
'-
o$m
-
N
2
6
od
o _an¢
O CO O
C'� � a
d =
o oNN
�
C
O X M
d
> m EO N
[
C
d 'S N
.O c N
0
a
c
O
U C d 5 L d: d 0
25ca��« a
m
y-0 0
o U`
n?
d
dd
firc
a
am
�c - E °�s c°
m C O
dm
d
d° d
" m w
U O d O N
d
« N Gd
a J
G
s >
E
m
0
N
O
N w a N m c j O
�
O`
"
m7 dm�
'm E
0 [2 ;w uE wt mG
dd �d
°m
VNC
l
d
�d
cf o
N a c d
O «
o - ° A
no
L O
°m
d c N
o d
G p W
d
O
W d E 62 o m E E m
d U
U d
N
d
U
E
E
m
C
d
O
M
U
N.
�ro
mC
CL 'n
C I t
C ^ C
WN
�a
m
o�
J
b)
a
o�
O
N
a
C
Q
U
C C
U o
A
C O)
0) W
Ul
O y
>a
J
C
i
K
c
W
m
m
L_
N
N
N
J
ry
N
V N
O o d a C
3 L N A
Vm1 C L(a N c $
O C � C> N
c
=
3
' O
O GI C
°a
lY (0
d
d
3 v 0 m o
t m
o d m
3 E
C d pp
O
dC
0
m o 12
c o 2 NNN
O "
w
C
m
V N
G
N $
O c— O
"� $
c
c
O
a
vo$ coT 0 r
T3
'O U
a mm y�E
$
c
6 0 3 N
2 m
C
O:S o$
N
a
_�
N 9 O
m
$
2
L m
3
o
a Q '.v
m j ,e
`5
o
42
s5�
n m
A>0 ms
ON
00
°nm -ffi
O U°a
_ —O
o
c
O
c
E E
N N
v
T C o 0
m
� o ==� nl- c
v Q O
n
mt
12
m
E
a
-.€
BZ
$ MM
,
a n m$mM
v �
m
r
L m
O
>.-
m m° o
E °
a
Or
L
C
a
D 2
U0
>N12F
N°
� Cu
o
v
Un O
ry
m 9vammg-6
rE
a
EL
�
00
cc 006=3.
d
ma
CN
�
a�
�C
76 0a v
p
o
°3
c ,p % H
mo
° m
�
y o
m $ E
vv
v
oLsM
°d
°
$ 0
a
N
.'d n c
m `
o y
$€ o m o.
m E
Q m w 5 m Q y
$
c c Ev c
o m v
F E d
9 n N N
> > m
N 0 N
3 v E
ow
t 8 C >
N m N
v E w
O L N
C r m N'o
m r C O'
E
U
m
o.
O m
c $ v
E
_ a m - m
`m `m E
E I
y
" o v
� v v m
L
cma c
y C tC y fl
mw m
y d
A.m m 76
N O m 2 m
$ -y ° m $
c v y Q d
a.:9O c
�'y m C
y m
pC
O m L O C S
U
d UN
Km
U C
m 0
N Z N
m � U
o h
W �`+
ro
v
N
a
a
m
us
O
N
a
d
Q
U
C C
u
w �
c a
or r.
N �
O y
> Q
J
c
c
of
f7
m
s«'
h
J
y
O T C C 2 L a z zL3
.°mam 05 cmEd
U
d�°
c U
d
Od
N "O
> U
EU
O w
N O N
0 3 N
w
V=
Fn
0
J U C N O
E o °a
T
= '
p«
O
N V N O
C N
Two N W N
U
o�
, ao
y
C
cry
yLm 0 00°
3
Q
N
Tc°iL
�N =a
m t�+� V
�
>
ma p
°~ °
m
E
°- $>
-
s .
-
N y
8
o a
m
Nm
d. L O O
Z
`Nm,m
N
a O«
nm
a.o -0
Ec
nOEmor
2E
L
c
C �jO A
QN
.3 mN mN�Om
r
dN>
c
EO-
y
mN
ma�
8o
oo -°
5 cm3�
°s r
o
m
No
m-
>
N m o
mc
o
°
aE y
a d m
00 --E MZ
- c m 8
a a8 « d
8
p
N V 'N
c
D> m d
-6-M C
o
m m m
a ...
maN�w
N U
w> m
a-NEENw
° «�
C N C m
mm «c-
N N C j N (i
cWctc�u o� €o>
mG
w-o
00mmot 5
c9v
Em >.°
n'SN�'S9amm �9 «cn
Nm
c° c m
m e
crn
m
m
L '� $ m a H€ a o-
„o�a
�n °gym �'oy
EMm
yLCym
mN
c
=c'_N m Nno...=
a
cE2
�Sia m.m.
°�
�"mo«
L
co N'° N..' °c. oo
a
G>Ea
F---oa
amm::m
,aoic
ooE
oo.,,mo
slow@€ry � c5�. o
0 3
m
o0
2 � °m
o.n�
�« m mo 61CL as �0U
1-r
oar
O N— y
n 2UUE vc
N e m
L N
Nodw'h
°
° «3«
O C o 0 m
0°m°v aom$
N
HSa
o o m
d°n°a
i0 t(S
v v
v
U U
U
•
N to
fn
N $ C L N
rQ „o m
0 m
Em E s�
m 'c O
u'�Ec�iE
>myi�c
E mU m m
w T�
w
N
mam.E
N 0 ° .0
m
0
°o ° v a
E
>
mm =at0
m
O C Y O
-
ioam
C
9 U O m
T
a
y« o e m
o E �o w
Q L N t0
yy�oa�
N >� Em
N U
L E 2._TC
^pL$Ec�
OI m
Of c N
N :F J N
L Q a> c c
U
m
m
m �
A$N
cit
E�m
41 N
�a
� e
m
Q
r
4
a a O
c s E m
N y c
m �
Lm rn�
my.a_o
�amia �
m m U
L
N~ O=
E 3n
d m > > N
N
$ama
'q o m
�c"ioc
O
5 O o U
2 -9 a2
°v a c
i4z� 3
m
C
m
O
a
m
u�
0
0
a
m
C
m
Q
d
°a
K
U
m D V m d c
m O
ME w O m N j
$ Ea o`oc c az V N&o cz
O
m X02 t��£cN d 3
.9$ on =E�ocm
m 0 o y O y m E N EO.. Q O O
O
0 Q$ m o E ac = o o a_
L
m�� c c c Q� cQ a, r mg ti o{p E a
Z Q a m H c=
V1 =0m m CmN m 00
E mu
cU° `aR c aai m =� d m'o o a y c
M �wc�EE`�i
J
T O L
Oj r a t O L m
-mcmw Ea cc '3 —mm._m 0`o¢
ami m$rnmc d c ao cO1 a Z'S
a — a a — o
gE$8a of m r H oa ma .c
m
LD ao�o_cx�?... N£Em
c— A m c c m c m c 'a
Q' N �' U OI •-
c o i r m a c o i a
n o.. >H Tt mt v_a mNN C'o
o
m e ' "O N a Q °> E o m m
N c c $mac m
y M�TO0N aN._NpU
Mo. dmo >pmc,�ac Nm
.O m mO L, 8 :E 'S o E m o S 2
o.Q CLp$cac�o °ao Qh2
oA C + ti Ecgmm o�41 co° O cm c N
M!2 as8E0000.30omU�'
N
0
U
C
A
.0
OI
y
c
m
N
N
m
J
as
— m
'§m
E
0
� c
h
m c
" m
c
m
0
d
m
U
0
E
m c
so
o�
8
c c
c �
a
m m
Z m
J L
L .L'
" N
d o
m
c
3 0
N y
�aa
'o
N
� N
U
t
O V
M
CI
mr
E3o
MZN
Q
Cq m
Q6
WN
4M am
� e
m
a
0
N
a
c
Q
ryC C
Y
k N
C
W'«
U)
od
ry
-
c
O�
N
z
m
-
C
D!
N
z
m
N
L. p❑ t O
m
m
2 Cc N
V L C y T C d
>�
E
E
a.�U�ao
J o a_
0
0
- c
�0= J
m z K y c a
a
m m
mE? .pwQCmc
E
E
£.5ma3
Z'§ o
c°
°c
0 m? v d a
N
C2-8m
cm O m - C
d
a°i
m
` J23 °- �N = a16
OE m-o2 E`,z
MmLOQN nm
O
V
V
IE
o n
Wm
N
m
O0
N« O L� U O mi N
c
m
m
v
j.�,� 0
a.
E
C
N
,2 �
N
20
E
mN
cm � m- m
n B
c
c�a p d
m2a
° aoW
o ay mm GI U aZamd
PD
m
UN
a
C
J
O N
N
N E
pp
a
E
Z m
Z `m
y
Z o
o m v m
m cm
5m<m<
M
= a
C ma
°mOa "uO
mJ
0 'w
fF 0C2
°WN N
�O
�>
E
..
E E 12
jc 00 a
m
cO
m N
E
m M o .?°
'cy E
0493 L C '° O
ai
�+ zm ° '(0
N
Camm..ON°N 1=
+E
O
m5J 6w 1pd .rJ
C(ANCmS
'o ma Eyrn
gym,9
'3a NmK 27o rnmsm,�cmi
c.o
��mU. -gym
"'6E
0 C L°-mN
z
�-ma cdJ- m%
n
m= a-o
m
� L' m
0 °m'C9
m o o 2 m 2 0 5 o c n
- me N2 >Q
=0
_ O e
3a mMa!�m
m
c rNgpv
mm
3t�m a « o. Tn_rnc
"°!ec 3oxi=
=
E3yyEc
ocrn�u >E
L
$
Ecq
C
0 2 0 3
. O
CO -M N C
i WT -M C N
_ ._ m
N m C C
T
6
> o o E
` rn a E ( N
myc 0 o
m
m O , N
w aU
— Nm
o m�
c a `mL s r„
R Z- c x R
o E
o
m �mm 3°
n
.
C�5
QCm
y g °
§Q E
C U�L
N 0.5 w
T O ' M
�yc
N
? '
� V
i`
d
d Y
nE viym�
° ° E
20
'm
0 °
�a >NLLyo
t5 o-E°xScNmim ca m._nY
m??m a
mmm(5 �9
m C� 2 y O
EA,
--EEO E O N N L 0 m c m
wo.
O m Y N 0 m
ctc d
mmEn >a�imt °m9 o0
mo35aEa -Ei
EiE�i �i0
E m m a o.v o. 2 S. m 3 m:
HHZ °C mz9
U
et
Z m
Z �
m
E 3° o
Z N
c�c
CO�Di N
Egg
d
m
m
m
a
a
0
N
c
U
C C
O
C [A
A
o y
j Q
m
J
E
c
m
fn
c
m
w
N
J
c
m
y
c
m
N
J
m aN 00C ° Na
U� «$ai9 C 'L'ICD
NECLpp"C
Ud aN
0 -'Cp
rj 6p.
N
T
LD my. LL
M W.p AN
� --
m
'n O'w C7 ° - m E =0 3 0
°€
� O z
P
o
E S °r
c o F
M
a10i
E
26 m
m t~ c a o E N E a m N
0°i 0° L`-'
ooa m o
c
O
d o m "0 w
3
N U m � pO Ea
2°'
2L 2
o2 �N
Un �,
�'- N m
_o
mma>oi�`"m MOD 'E Em"m
EE�2�a`�
mCmNO
£m
lO GU
Lag
W
.o
a02 �«
mEc m
.wH2m
.i 50 aam- E'�Ea�c`4 °��
« —'w
"a N2i
gym"
ono
3 m g 2c
v D 9 a a 2
€ 5 a
a
umirn
c E 0- a s
0
0
no m
c c
ma o.ac
r
2. $
a
m
y ° 'cs
d
rn =a amt mc`o
o.m .E mmo E hTn�m`'°�
v
NCpOai�
�c
2
c oTa� ,cn �c Eo
12
C��
«Am2
mm�0
a>EE
JNN
Oar>
d
a0
d'a
-L
O�U'WON�O72 «��
0 -M m
m>
=F-N
a0.L
�m
Las
L C
p m C' O 6-
6- w 0� C Z
o is �� `$
rn w c
C
N m N O
3 0°
`o�
�maa
a2E
d
3o
2m
�2om0�.Op_F3
�mw m ° °9
m�
a0ai5 '
pdmdNy- dO Cy
OdO>. =0
Na
O.
NOj mO9
C m C N a'J CCNJJ 0I N
$
E
L« L� L
a m 2 3 m m 2 F 2« 2« m m
0 L> m V
a N —co o
J m
a a U m
c
2 m= m 0 2
a
N
M
m w �pp p cp
m N. Q O O
d
ErnOm
m
m'wma
C m m =� N mm°
L °I N v
°
y 0 0 L
U L j 9 a
O«
m
0 m
L m N
m a U.S
° 0
'rp C 0
$ C C
p gm
NO2�ONV
d m `
mc'm
2a 0._�,UO
N A m D o m O
as
o s s
mo
w
N
E m v
r
o«
s mQ
a
E
m c E
a M m
0 N r m a L
a 0 m
2m$2R�o
UEa= °
cmwE'b
p1m oa
y°
° Sw z
B a
NEm E'
0=--U
o. °OCi0
$oO ._.e��2
o
2
2yomEg'
WE � g 3 u
N
n9motEcN
g§ `a'�
'6 d
L O N E
$ 3 3 o
l W
S'm ". t N a
L'O
a p O L2
0 N r m
U
� m
m
nya
W Z N
L
Emm
W 0`+
�am
O
r
a
rn
0
N
a
m
Q
em
M
O y
J
V=
C
N
N
m
J
K
C
A
N
m
w
C
A
fmq
m
J
!F
C
m
N
m
J
qqJ
T my (a
N Ol
J
J
y0(laaL'
O o
J
�y
N
N
E
E
? EvS Z'o
E
c
O
`min amia�
°O m '�
c
m Y a m
a
O1
t c°i N y
U nm m
`E
m
0 3cm ,°t
m o
a
0 0 0
m o m m
m
°m
°m
m
o
�N
mo aio
m m
Ema;
�n rn -
m°
c
o E
m 5
a
°m
m °cc0
m c E0 o
m
m
E �°� m
a
a
Z
mi
N oa`-°a n
m
m
ym0�$N �°
m
o
a -
m 3
m 0 w
'E
'
m
:s
m a°
a o o o y
0
C
c
a
y =mmo
J
d
mNa °`
o
E�a E
o
Z
m
Z
Z
-.E 0-6
a
a Naym
N
a
-2
a i N C
m
a
U
y E$ m
u
E
E
m U t n c
c
E
m" ❑a' -�
to �
s
m o
c
0
1a0
m
o o o m
a vma
D•
5
E 0 a o c
.�
`.NcaF
mon
.N �
c
ag EaEoE
nm
rn Q y
°
Z
Z
om> X o
C w
m m E
Z m
C N m U N O i
m P m o m
C m C
m '
m 2_
N O
V
m m 5 m
cm O
o<-
= c a
E
w oaE oN� i
E
u`{o Jo
t °>
SW0-
N
ma!a c
3
C- 9 Q N-
m a a o
J o ,0
C O
cj
N
d N
° m C
C
o Q3Ea4my
E -
a
C m
n=
No °'3.,°'mm
`ca
E
ma °E�
ac E'm
n'_n
= $QE
n mg'
-t
Eco °t
ma
a�i
a
E
cJ
d y
ZmE
y m
o
°o
m ZzL °
°am
r
a
o
o °O
m
a
, y O
_5 E'>
0
2Z 55 a
im N
coUp 9
m
c a d
v
d d a
N
a o y`
E
N
o o
ai
m
m ° aam E �
u 3w'
ra
0.l mc
42 nn c
O
CL
m m L
'
00- m > a
y
m 8C o N
'n C c
12
°O �d
a
`m
m
(
O . O . .0
!
C
a
U
N n
° - n
J O
_
"
no EEamDm"dm
> c E
>a0
N
E• o mm N
N a E o o
o c
0Ea3`0
m m
zmomn,co3L
LN S
y`Lyy'�io =C Zm'm
o 5
x E
vm•.�E_
Um f:m --
C E ' 0c 1S
�n Oc E -
mmndCcCo0y
d
N
'02
omm.
E
J°'
m
° t o
"m'^
c
c mi °a
mt a a
tH - cEc
m
9
!m
Bc N m -
a
E
m m 0 a m
> ZE
d n
U
C =
m
co
CL
oY
E3o
Z N
I
t� N
e ,n
ER
W N
Ea
m
n
a
rn
0
a
G
m
Q
U
C C
U
N
C OI
Ol `.
N �
O `y
W Q
d
J
�y
d
R
f
0
O)
_rNd
= L L N
3 Y O Q
u Q O > .
c
� o 2 m 0
U � O
Q?6,m
O O
= C N y O
C W C
10 N C dp
U C n X N C d
M OR d 0 0
c� a
E o a g
Tn PNc
m.xoo�am
m E
m m °Eo�m
O 0 8 C N
d N >
='x° o0 E
m3m'-
° m d = c
m5 mi'c3�
=`o
N c
m0 m n 7 N
A
E0Soco
d
O X N O N y
_ m
m M O 9 h
y L L d C m
U
o e
m m
�m
U �
E3o
T,o2N
� � U
d
C Obi N
i
Qa
WN
�a
0 c
d
Q
N
d
R
a
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background
CHAPTER 2.0
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR
2.1.1 Authority
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.) and
the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 at seq.). This EIR assesses the
potential impacts associated with the proposed Aerie project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency
for the proposed project and the discretionary actions listed below.
An EIR is an informational document prepared pursuant to CEQA. It provides decision- makers, public
agencies, and the public in general with detailed information about the potential significant environmental
effects of a proposed project. It also lists the ways in which the significant effects of a project might be
minimized and identifies several alternatives to the project for consideration. CEQA requires that an EIR
contain at a minimum, certain specific information, including but not limited to a clear, concise project
description; environmental settings; discussion of environmental impacts; effects found not to be
significant, and cumulative impacts. This information is required pursuant to Sections 15120 through
15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference
As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical
studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the documents that has been incorporated by reference
has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) that follow and the relationship between the
incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has been described. The documents and
other sources, which have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR, are identified in Chapter 12.0
(Bibliography). In accordance with Section 15150(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the location where
the public may obtain and review these referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation
of the Draft EIR is also identified in Chapter 12.0. Several Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan
have been used extensively in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Where appropriate and necessary, one
or more of those elements have been incorporated by reference as permitted by CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, environmental analysis contained in the Final EIR prepared for the
General Plan Update has also been incorporated into this Draft EIR. The information and analysis
incorporated by reference have been summarized in the appropriate sections of this document.
2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR is intended to provide information regarding the
environmental consequences of, mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the proposed Aerie project. It
is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies regarding implementation of mitigation measures.
CEQA is speck about providing disclosure where "[t]he EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry
that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action ... " [Guidelines
Section 15300 (d)]. CEQA also requires consideration of the whole or entirety of an action. With these
guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this EIR are to:
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background
• Inform the decision - makers, public, and agencies about the project;
• Analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Aerie project;
• Provide notice to Responsible(Trustee Agencies regarding the Aerie project;
• Incorporate analysis related to the requirements of CEQA to allow responsible agencies to
make findings pursuant to this EIR.
Although this Draft EIR will also be necessarily specific in the depth of analysis (i.e., project -level
analysis), this document, along with the supporting existing setting and General Plan and related long -
range planning documents, provides environmental documentation for the implementation of each of the
elements proposed by the project applicant for use of the existing and proposed development. It provides
project level environmental documentation for individual project elements that are consistent with the
goals, concepts, and strategies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan.
A discretionary approval is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of
judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. For this project, the government
agency is the Newport Beach City Council. To approve and implement the proposed Aerie project, the
following specific discretionary approvals by the Newport Beach City Council are needed:
• Certification of the EIR (DEIR and FEIR together) /Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
• Approval of a General Plan Amendment
• Approval of a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
• Approval of a Zone Change
• Approval of a Tentative Tract Map
• Approval of a Modification Permit
• Approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit
In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this document is intended to serve as a
"project' EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the specific development project. In this case,
several discretionary actions are requested to implement the proposed Aerie project. The analysis
contained in this document will focus on the changes in the environment that will result from the
development of the proposed improvements identified by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services,
Inc.
2.1.4 Related Approvals
This EIR may be used by the following public agencies in the adoption of the proposed Aerie project,
related improvements, and approval of implementation activities there under (refer to Table 2 -1);
City Council of the City of Newport Beach;
Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach;
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background
3. Departments of the City of Newport Beach that must approve implementation activities
undertaken in accordance with the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal
Residential Development Permit, and related discretionary actions;
4. California Coastal Commission;
5. California Regional Water Quality Control Board;
6. All other public agencies that may approve implementation activities or permits
undertaken in accordance with the discretionary approvals listed above.
2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction
The principal agency having jurisdiction over the proposed project is the City of Newport Beach because
the project site is located in the City. Nonetheless, the proposed project includes a series of possible
actions over which a number of agencies may have authority. Table 2 -1 lists potential state, regional, and
local approvals that may occur during the course of implementation of the proposed project and identifies
the agencies with potential jurisdiction over these permits and /or approvals.
Table 2 -1
List of Potential Responsible Agencies /Project Approvals
Agency
Permit /Approval
Local Agencies
City of Newport Beach
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
Coastal Residential Development Permit
Tentative Tract Map
Modification Permit
Building, Grading and Ancillary Permits
Water Supply and Distribution
Sewer Facilities
Drainage/Flood Control Facilities
Regional A encies
Orange County Sanitation District
Sewage Collection and Treatment
Connection Permit
Orange County Health Care Agency
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Remediation
Soils and Vapor Remediation
South Coast AQMD
Asbestos Abatement
State encies
Coastal Commission
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
Coastal Development Permit
State Water Resources Control Board
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Storm Water Permit for Construction
Activities
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background
Federal
Section 10 Permit
2.1.6 Notice of Preparation /Scoping Meeting
The City of Newport Beach has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by
preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach determined that
the Aerie project required the preparation of the EIR and, as authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, an initial study was not prepared. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of
an EIR for the proposed Aerie project on September 23, 2008 for a 30 -day review period. The NOP was
distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service
providers, interested persons who requested notice, Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners'
associations in the project area. Copies of the NOP and the distribution list are provided in Appendix A of this
EIR. The City also conducted a community scoping meeting on October 29, 2008 pursuant to Section 15083
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to Appendix B). The initial NOP comments
were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. Appendix B contains a copy
of the NOP comment letters that were received during each NOP comment period.
2.1.7 Availability of the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR has been distributed directly to numerous public agencies and to interested organizations
for review and comment. The Draft EIR and all related technical studies are also available for review and
copying at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. These documents and materials are also
available for inspection at the Newport Beach Public Library located at 1000 Avocado in the City of
Newport Beach. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review at the two branch
libraries listed below.
Mariners Branch Balboa Branch
2005 Dover Drive 100 East Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft
EIR during the public review period, which will begin on and will end on
. Specifically, comments are requested on the scope and adequacy of the environmental
analysis. Respondents are also asked to provide or identify additional environmental information that is
germane but which they feel may not have been used in the analysis. Following the public review period,
a response to all substantive public review comments will be prepared and compiled into a Final EIR.
The Final EIR will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council for certification.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2-4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background
In addition to the locations identified above, copies of the Draft EIR for the Aerie project are also available
for review at:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Contact Person: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210
2.1.8 Opportunities for Public Input and the EIR Process
If comments on the Draft EIR are submitted, they will be addressed in the Responses to Comments
Report. The Responses to Comment Report will be part of the Final EIR and will be presented to the
Newport Beach City Council for their consideration of the EIR and the proposed Aerie project. The
Response to Comments Appendix will be available for public review at the City of Newport Beach
Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard.
2.1.9 Certification of the EIR
After the circulation of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach will prepare responses to all written
comments received on the environmental analysis presented in that document and will prepare the Final EIR.
The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, revised as appropriate based on comments received during the
public comment period, the EIR Appendices and the Responses to Comments Appendix.
The Newport Beach City Council will review the Final EIR and will consider the information and analysis
contained in that document prior to its certification, should the City Council find the environmental analysis to
be adequate. The City Council will be required to certify the EIR as being adequate under CEQA prior to
approving the discretionary actions that constitute project approval.
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed
in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and
regional settings are discussed as they existed at the time the NOP was published.
2.2.2 Significance Criteria
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR "identify and focus on the significant
environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects" and "impacts" mean the same under CEQA and
are used interchangeably within this Draft EIR. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the
environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project" (Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines).
In determining whether an impact is "significant" within CEQA's definition, emphasis has been given to
the basic policies of CEQA with respect to a particular subject matter, as well as to specific criteria for
significance found in the CEQA Guidelines (refer to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines). An effort has
been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based in specific CEQA policies
and /or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be determined. For each subject area
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -5
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background
addressed within this Draft EIR, significance criteria are identified that have been applied in analyzing the
potential effects of the Proposed Project.
2.2.3 Standard Conditions
The Proposed Project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions and uniform
codes as required by the City and /or other responsible agencies. For analytical purposes, compliance
with these regulatory requirements is not considered mitigation. Where an otherwise significant impact is
avoided, in whole or in part, due to the application of standard regulatory requirements or project features,
the text will note that an issue of environmental concern exists and that it is addressed by a standard
regulatory requirement. The requirement has been identified and the manner in which it addresses the
environmental issue is also identified. This precludes the use of mitigation measures that are mere
repetitions of common practice, City planning /approval procedures, or laws that are applicable to the
Proposed Project.
2.2.4 Impact Analysis
The impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR identifies specific project - related impacts. As described
above, the significance criteria provide the basis for distinguishing between impacts that are determined
to be significant (i.e., impact exceeds the threshold of significance) and those that are less than
significant. The existing environmental setting (i.e., existing conditions) is the baseline for documenting
the nature and extent of impacts anticipated to result from project implementation. Potential impacts
presented in the Draft EIR will be based on a "worst case analysis," which assumes future development
within the subject property based on a maximum buildout of the site proposed by the project applicant.
In assessing the impacts of the Proposed Project and the various CEQA alternatives, the City of Newport
Beach has conducted the following analysis:
"Potential effects" of the project have been identified. Initially, these potential effects are
identified on a cursory level. No determination is made that they truly are "significant," "adverse,"
or "substantial." This process merely identifies issues and impacts, which, on a cursory level,
may seem possible. "Potential effects" include issues identified in the environmental analysis as
well as those raised by the public, the City, and other public agencies.
With respect to each potential effect, an analysis has been conducted to determine if, in fact:
The project produces the identified "effect "; and
The effect produces a substantial, or potentially substantial, change in the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project (i.e., "significant"); and
The changed conditions are "adverse"
Where the investigation of a potential effect concludes the effect is too speculative for evaluation,
that conclusion is noted and the discussion of that effect is ended. Where the investigation
demonstrates a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur, but is beneficial,
that conclusion is noted. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect is not significant
or not adverse, that conclusion is noted.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background
2.2.5 Mitigation Measures
Where the analysis described in Section 2.2.4 above demonstrates that a potential effect does or may
(without undue speculation) occur and is found to have a substantial or potentially substantial and
adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion is noted
and:
Mitigation measures are provided which will minimize or avoid the significant effects and,
in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels; and /or
Where feasible mitigation measures are not identified which can reduce or avoid the
significant effect(s) to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as
one that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts ".
2.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
This section of the Draft EIR will identify the level of impact that would remain after implementation of the
mitigation measures, including significant unavoidable adverse impacts (i.e., those effects that either
cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation) or if the mitigation measures
prescribed cannot reduce the significant impacts to a less than significant level (or the mitigation
measures are infeasible, or their implementation cannot be guaranteed because they are the
responsibility of another public agency).
2.3 Format of the Draft EIR
As noted above, this EIR focuses on the analysis of those environmental parameters that may experience
significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed Aerie project. This analysis is documented in this
Draft EIR as follows:
Section 1.0 — Executive Summary. This section includes the executive summary, which summarizes
the proposed project and the project alternatives. In addition, a table is included in this section that
summarizes the potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after
mitigation.
Section 2.0 — Introduction and Background. This section provides relevant, information, context and
background on the CEQA process and the proposed project.
Section 3.0 — Project Description. This section includes a brief description of the environmental
setting, provides a detailed project description, enumerates the project objectives, and identifies
implementation /phasing associated with the proposed project.
Section 4.0 — Environmental Analysis. This section describes the existing conditions, the
thresholds of significance, the analytical methodology, the impacts of the proposed project,
mitigation to reduce or avoid any significant adverse impacts, and the level of significance of the
impacts after mitigation.
Section 5.0 — Imoacts Determined Not to be Significant. This section summarizes the environmental
impacts determined not to be significant.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background
Section 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section summarizes the potential
significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, after mitigation, based on the
analysis documented in Section 4.0.
Section 7.0 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. This section addresses the
potential for irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources associated with the proposed
project.
Section 8.0 — Growth- Inducing Impacts. This section addresses the potential for growth- inducing
impacts associated with the proposed project.
Section 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts. This section addresses the potential for cumulative impacts
associated with the proposed project.
Section 10.0 — Proiect Alternatives. This section provides a qualitative analysis of the potential
environmental impacts associated with the Alternatives to the Project, including the No Project
Alternative.
Section 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted. This section lists the City of Newport Beach
staff and /or departments consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR as well as consultant
personnel who were consulted during or responsible for the preparation of this Draft EIR.
Section 12.0 — References. This section lists the references used in the preparation of this Draft EIR.
Section 13.0 — Glossary of Acronyms. This section provides a comprehensive glossary of terms and
acronyms used in the EIR.
Appendices. The Appendices to this EIR include the NOP, the responses to the NOP and
technical reports prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project alternatives. Technical
studies prepared for the proposed project, which include: (1) circulation queuing analysis; (2) air
quality analysis; (3) noise analysis; (4) terrestrial and marine biology assessment; (5) hydrology
analysis; (6) geotechnical analysis; (7) coastal engineering assessment; (8) Phase I
environmental site assessment and asbestos survey; (9) visual simulations; and (10) cultural and
paleontological assessments. The several technical assessments prepared for the proposed
project are either appended to the Draft EIR or are available at the Newport Beach Planning
Department for review.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 2 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
CHAPTER 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location
The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County (refer to
Exhibit 3 -1). Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa
Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, which is located in unincorporated Orange
County, is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of
the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana
River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southwestern boundary of the City. The relationship of the City
of Newport Beach with the region is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -1 (Regional Location).
The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due
to the natural geographic form of the Newport Bay. Many of the newer developments, located inland from
the bay, have been based on a "Planned Community' concept, resulting in an extension of the village
form, even where no major geographic division exists. The various villages provide for a wide variety of
type and style of development, both residential and commercial. The City includes lower density, single -
family residential areas, as well as more intensively developed residential beach areas. Commercial
areas range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial, neighborhood shopping
centers, a regional shopping center, and visitor commercial areas.
The subject property currently consists of two parcels (APNs 052 - 013 -12 and 052 - 013013) and a small
portion (584 square feet) of a third parcel (APN 052 - 013 -21), encompassing a total area of
approximatelyl.4 acres. The site 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 (refer to Exhibit 3 -2, Vicinity Map). 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.
3.2 Environmental Setting
3.2.1 Existing Land Use
The site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as
deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built
prior to 1961) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing,
irregularly shaped, concrete pad. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels, including three
split levels that are visible above the existing grade from the street. All four levels of the existing building are
visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along
Carnation Avenue. The lowest extent of a portion of the foundation of the existing apartment building down
the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) measurement
standard.' The single - family home on the site and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building
are occupied.
'All references to an elevation In this EIR shall be to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
The site encompasses a portion of a steep coastal bluff located above the entrance to Newport Harbor. The
west - facing portion of the site is subject to marine erosion with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff
that forms a small cove. The sand within the cove is typically submerged at high tide.
There is a public view through the property at the southern end of the site. This includes limited views of
Newport Bay, the Balboa Peninsula, and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is visible from public vantage
points on the Balboa Peninsula and the Newport Bay.
The existing buildings, including impervious surfaces with the exception of the bluff staircase, presently cover
approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest portions of the site.
Coverage is approximately 41 percent of the area of the site above mean higher high tide line. The existing
apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built in 1955. The
apartment building contains open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the building
facing Carnation Avenue. The age and architectural character of the existing residential structures contrast
with the character and 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 subject property. 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 project site, but also the existing development on surrounding properties.
In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project involves the replacement of
the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property. The existing docks can moor four (4)
boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one guest side tie dock are
proposed. The structural elements of the existing landing and docks are in very poor condition. The City has
required the landowner to take action to remediate the hazard posed by the existing pier, gangway and piles,
which are in a state of disrepair. In addition, the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot
gangway.
The project site and surrounding development are illustrated on Exhibit 3 -3 (Aerial Photograph)
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 - Project Description
Tra*Ave
Taa,FAVe �'�%
�
n o OmOOna
ootl
WesI Bn ENd 1Ne51011091eB
C°Iaw AWaaNa
W 11e, 91
Mon Orange
o
u
i
WeYj`ni, ea
iom Ab Caunry War $
Si
RAih�iri On Beach
Balsa
W 1,,s,
"-W 1n5,
a and EieF
,. AVe
6dsa
lM1<Gabes
Santa Ana
TU51
4Nipuel
Mitlway City
_ _
x
M Rado Bdsa
Dana P.m,
CSan CI
EdlnOet AVe
io
EEd,nea.A
¢
Smetza
m GoulevaN Gardens
— San. An, Laden,—
_
Ve coB WedWed
<ASo via N'a
We
_y .burp _ �
Wame�AVe W,VUnu PVe t_
EWamu Ave
O..ve
[tleMa -1,aez G
SoMM1 Sans p,a Fdr°
et
imce, ^�
- - Fountain Valley
v,
"
ffin
WMadEhm 8%. 11
oype
my
m
® n'Sucnoner AVe �
A Cwno
Ellis Ave
• -..
Sunfl°xea
A'VE
G,L Aar
no
- " Garfield AVe
_
- -
ned
s.
e e+ If, Try FkaGa:
U 6NSa
y
O _
3 C
P.W.M. ep
n St
_
O
n
°a
East lavi
9
. •
s'•.
ea e
Irvine
Huntington Beach
>4
1 atnt +a'ayDi 133
-da
F
0"
a'
=Costa Mesa
w,
Newport Beach
-
say shwea
' F�;ea�u�•
..e—
e
S ,
11—pe,
_l °•
a iA,O
Gtlo We £ry'
1A,00l. eAve
Babes
ProJea Site
a Del Mai
M
�6km
3m1es
yah Lac.
SOURCE: City OF Newport Beach
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -3
Crystal LOVe
O _a 133
re
aakn
ene altl Bay
Rq OfR
T& s
Exhibit 3 -1
Regional Map
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 - Project Description
Project Site
��SAY A' +EE
_J L--- -
-BALBOABLVOE,
r
cAN FRET AO�Y f a- /o p0
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach
�Op
C
. -�vP? s�ONO
` OP qLF
P p
O
o-
ay
m
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196- Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -4
F/q
sr
4LF
QP
OQ
S�
,O
41%
OF
OR -
yf
9L
P qL
, R
09
r`
e0P PF
- P
J�
` 5e
o �
aREgkERS O4 cF IVe c4
0
864ft
Exhibit 3 -2
Vicinity Map
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -5
Exhibit 3 -3
Aerial Photograph
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
Surrounding Land Uses
The area in the vicinity where the Property is located is nearly completely developed with a single- and
multiple family residences (refer to Exhibit 3 -3). A variety of architectural styles characterize the area.
West of the 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 multiple - family residences on Carnation Avenue and
Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff that 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 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 ").
South and east of the Site are a mix of 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.
3.2.2 Existing General Plan
The subject property is located within Statistical Area F3, which encompasses single - family and multiple -
family residential development in Corona del Mar generally west of Hazel Drive, east of Avocado Avenue
and south of Bayside Drive. As illustrated in Exhibit 3 -4, the largest portion of the subject property is
designated RM (Multiple -Unit Residential — 20 du /ac) by the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan. In addition, a small portion of the site (528 square feet) located near the northwestern
property boundary is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential). Based on the existing General Plan land use
designations, 28 multiple - family residential dwelling units could be built on the site.
3.2.3 Coastal Land Use Plan
The City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) was derived from the Land Use Element of the City's General
Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The majority of the
subject property is currently designated RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per
gross acre). In addition, a small portion of the site is designated RH -D (High Density Residential D — 50.1
to 60 dwelling units per gross acres). As prescribed in the CLUP, development within the coastal zone
shall not exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances.
3.2.4 Existing Zoning
The majority of the subject property is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would
accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land (refer to Exhibit
3 -5). However, pursuant to Section 20.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the maximum density
within the MRF (2178) zoning district is calculated using the total lot area minus the slopes in excess of 50
percent and submerged lands.
Total Site Area 61,284 square feet
Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet
Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet
The maximum density that would be permitted on the subject property is determined by subtracting the area
of the site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the site located below mean
higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total project site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation
results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling
unit, a maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted on the subject property. The project applicant is
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning
classification.
A small portion of the site (564 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has
proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the site to MFR, which would be consistent
with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM.
Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and make
the MFR zoning classification apply to the entire site. The MFR zoning classification permits higher
density development than the R -2 zoning classification.
3.2.5 Physical Environment
Climate and Air Quali
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square mile area
encompassing all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. A persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific
Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is determined
primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild
winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone and
pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses
pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB
fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and
PM10, and is classified as a "non - attainment' area for those pollutants.
Geology and Seismicity
The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults
or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project
site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State
Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the
immediate vicinity of the project site, it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring
on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the
Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only
active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude
or greater maximum credible earthquake.
The topography of the subject site slopes toward Newport Bay. The existing buildings are located on the
upper portions of the bluff and bluff face. Site elevation ranges from approximately 70 feet above sea level at
the top of the bluff to sea level on the west side of the site. The geologic units underlying the subject property
and environs include artificial fill, marine and non - marine terrace deposits, and bedrock units assigned to the
upper - middle Miocene Monterey Formation.
Drainage and Hydrology
As previously indicated, the entire site is developed and is occupied by 15 dwelling units, including 14
multiple family dwelling units and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Impervious surfaces cover
the vast majority of the site, which is adequately served by the City's storm drain system located in the
roadways that surround the site. The subject property is not located within the 100- or 500 -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. Further, neither the subject property nor the surrounding
residential development is located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the
failure of a levee or dam.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Deschption
SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element
Exhibit 3-4
Existing General Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -9
Exhibit 3 -5
Existing Zoning
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
Hydraulic (i.e., ground water) flow is generally in a down- gradient direction, usually toward the nearest
surface water body. Surface drainage in the project environs is anticipated to flow to the west, toward
Newport Bay, which is adjacent on the west.
Transportation and Circulation
The subject property is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Regional access to the
project area is available from West Coast Highway (California State Route 1) via the Corona del Mar
Freeway (California State Route 73) MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and also from the Costa
Mesa Freeway (California State Route 55) and Newport Boulevard. The area in which the subject
property is located is served by a "grid" of residential streets that extends to the north and south from
West Coast Highway. The site is located on Carnation Avenue near the intersection of Ocean Boulevard.
Vehicular access to the project area is available from West Coast Highway via Marguerite Avenue. Neither
of these local streets is designated as an Arterial or a Commuter Roadway on the City's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways. The area in which the subject property is located is primarily residential in nature.
Public Services and Utilities
Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire
Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains eight fire stations to respond to emergency calls
throughout the City. Fire Station No. 5 is located at 410 Marigold in Corona del Mar, less than one mile
east of the site. This fire station is supported by one fire engine and one paramedic van. Fire Station No.
3 in Fashion Island is located less than two miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the
NBFD also maintains a formal mutual 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 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, less than two miles
northwest of the subject property. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols
with designated "beats"
The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer and water mains in the vicinity of the
subject property, including those in Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Sewer collection and
wastewater treatment services are provided by the City of Newport Beach (local collection) and the
Orange County Sanitation District (conveyance and treatment). In addition, all of the utilities (i.e.,
electricity, natural gas, and telephone) are currently available and serve the existing development. The
project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern
California Gas Company, respectively.
3.2.6 Social Environment
The City of Newport Beach is nearly fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional,
commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. The predominant land use in the City is
residential, which is characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first
developed along the coastline, including the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. The
early housing is characterized by a diversity of multiple - family, single- family, and mixed -use housing
located within proximity of commercial and visitor - serving uses. While single - family attached and
detached residential development comprise the majority of housing in the City, many multiple - family
dwelling units, including condominium, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, exist in Newport
Beach and, in particular, in the older neighborhoods including West Newport.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -10
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0— Project Description
Between 1980 and 2005, 11,127 housing units were added to the City's inventory of housing stock.
Although the rate of increase in housing within the City has slowed since 1990, the City averaged
approximately 200 to 300 dwelling units per year between 2001 and 2005 (with the exception of 2003,
which included the annexation of Newport Coast). The total number of housing units as of January 1,
2005 was estimated to be 42,143, including approximately 26,000 units (62 percent) that are single - family
attached and detached homes. Thirteen percent of the units (5,475 homes) were duplex, triplex, and
fourplex units. Other multiple - family dwelling units in the City in 2005 totaled 9,721 (23 percent). The
remainder of the dwelling units in the City were mobile homes (863 or two percent). The overall vacancy
rate of housing in the City of Newport Beach ranged from 10.1 and 11.3 percent between 1980 and 2000,
respectively; however, there are a significant number of homes in the City that are classified as seasonal
units and second homes. The vacancy rate in all units in the City in 2005 was reported to be 10.91
percent.]]
A variety of retail uses are located throughout the City and include those in neighborhood shopping
centers, commercial strips and villages, and shopping centers, with the largest being Fashion Island, a
regional center that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Other
neighborhood retail centers are located throughout the City. In addition to the retail uses, the City also
supports a variety of professional office uses, which are located mostly within Newport Center and the
Airport Area. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area, east of Banning
Ranch, and include a variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses. Research and
development uses are clustered in the Airport Area while government, educational, and institutional uses
are scattered throughout the City. One of the primary locations for medical uses in the City is near Hoag
Hospital, which is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard.
3.3 History and Evolution of the Proposed Development
Prior environmental documents were prepared in 2007 and 2008 for the Aerie residential project (PA
2005 -196) 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 to 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.2 Because these facilities currently exist in a deteriorated condition and pose a
potential safety hazard, 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. As a result of those revisions, the City conducted a subsequent
environmental analysis in April 2008 that contained an assessment of the proposed 8 -unit project and
boat dock facility.
Public hearings were conducted following the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the project. The Newport Beach Planning Commission recommended approval of the
project at a public hearing on June 19, 2008. The City Council, which conducted a public hearing on July
22, 2008, received public testimony and requested additional information related to the proposed project
and the environmental analysis. No action was taken on the project and the public hearing was continued
3 The cove located on the project site and studied in the technical reports prepared for this MND is sometimes referred to within this
MND as "Carnation Cove." Although local usage of the term "Carnation 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- specific analysis of the cove located on the project site. Therefore,
references to "Carnation Cove" within this MND include, and in some instances are limited to, the beach area and cove on the
oroiect site.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -11
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter ao— Project Description
indefinitely to allow time for City staff and the applicant to respond to the City Council's request for
additional information. Subsequently, a decision was made to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact
Report.
3.4 Description of the Proposed Project
The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with
an 8 -unit condominium development as illustrated in the Conceptual site Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -6) and as
described below.
Residential Structure
The Project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of
living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean levels
with common recreation areas, mechanical and electrical areas, storage areas, and parking levels (the
"basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement "). Exhibits 3 -7 through 3 -12 illustrate each of the
six levels of the proposed residential structure; cross - sections of through the site are shown in Exhibit 3-
13 and 3 -14.
Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four
residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass
61,709 square feet, which includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical
areas. Exhibits 3 -15 and 3 -16 illustrate the proposed architectural character of the project.
The floor area allocations for each of the eight condominium units are summarized in Table 3 -1.
Table 3 -1
Project Statistical Analysis
Unit No.
No. of
Levels
Living Area
S . Ft.
Garage
(S q. Ft.
Storage
(S q. Ft.)
Total
(S q. Ft.
1
1
3,716
416
471
4,603
2
1
3,204
410
705
4,319
3
1
2,662
397
648
3,707
4
1
2,916
418
709
4,043
5
2
4,990
483
1,143
6,616
6
2
4,130
436
889
5,455
7
1
1 3,745
399
674
1 4,818
8
1
4,063
552
704
5,319
Sub -Total
29,426
3,511
5,943
38,880
Parkin g /Circulation/
Common Area
22'829
Total
61,709
SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -12
CD C
. a
te
s m
KN
w
C
U
of
m w
�Nm
m�
4
X30
m2c°v cj
cis m
eo
WN
�a
o�
m
jem u n IaS
OLI
I, c
M m
._ a
Q 0
s�
W LL
w
C
N
E
N
N
R
m
7
Y
U
o t
wY
Q
a
W $ N
C � t
rz
C
e�
>o
W�
�a
o c
r
M
a
a"
u LLOI
'1Y3wa n 'UM a
SW,14!
uo
TdG VNOMCJ
v NON
aAtl NOLLtlNiltl7 LAL- IOL
I
ir�a_
altlad
Wvawma'ugq�
1N3w35VB�M'
a
�_�
5
jem u n IaS
OLI
I, c
M m
._ a
Q 0
s�
W LL
w
C
N
E
N
N
R
m
7
Y
U
o t
wY
Q
a
W $ N
C � t
rz
C
e�
>o
W�
�a
o c
r
M
a
a"
co C
M !9
.IL
0
r G
W LL
G
N
E
d
N
c0
m
U
t
oL
m m
�m
U t
O O
Q
E3o
mo
G�� a
>o
GO
W �`+
�a
� c
m
0) c
M@
. o.
L
L O
W V
r
N
LL
U
C .
OL
U
0
v co
U �
Egg
36Z l7
G L Of
S O
GO
W¢
ra
o�
d
o c
Ma
Y_ L
0
t O
K LL
W O
C
O
U
d
N
U
t
J-
ca
m m
�m
m t
n
m
E3o
mZN t7
Q�g a
W
�a
o�
m
Ma
Y_ y
� o
t O
X LL
W �p
t
H
U
C _
of
m m
�No
mY
W 2N ty
>o
W N
o e
d
I 3Atl NOLL1MtlV7 LOL IoC I �_ �,MW4_— I NV7� , l,l II lI it it I� e���l a I
N
� f6
Ma
Y_ L
C O
0
X LL
W t
t
7
O
LL
U
C .
o c
am
Wm
U �
tog
wool 7
C t 0
m�� A
G ,my d
eo
WN
�a
o2
m
Q
� k
I �
�IIII ll� J Y
_ �i �J!I�aJii�ai?as d,
r .
15
•■ I_
I u�
TLIU
t�
FNE _JAI
al'I
•I��� w LLI
y
1 M", 1111M
Mm
M�
aQ
L N
X =
W p
Y
U
N
N
N
O
U
U
C t
0
m
E3o
aZN
IID
C � t
C � �
��g
5
W$
ME
a
o�
Q
N
nl
a
inn
Lot
L, n
Ilu
iiooiuul
i
I
��l
I—
null
II
_
_vc
a
� k
I �
�IIII ll� J Y
_ �i �J!I�aJii�ai?as d,
r .
15
•■ I_
I u�
TLIU
t�
FNE _JAI
al'I
•I��� w LLI
y
1 M", 1111M
Mm
M�
aQ
L N
X =
W p
Y
U
N
N
N
O
U
U
C t
0
m
E3o
aZN
IID
C � t
C � �
��g
5
W$
ME
a
o�
Q
N
nl
a
Will
f I
I
I III II I-
on�n�IbFII�Aj�A " " -n_A
n n II I n II n-II I
■-
"II
®1 o
�BI�p�IBBBBBB��afl
Slllllnl
ill IllliI
I II II I
ll T
I II I I.YI
li 1_I
LI III
-I
fir. n
[IL�(=nfJ1 =1f� =1aA�Y
eRenln� =R X11 =i� A� =A =A =A "
"Ae�
gl�ff�iv� �
�I I
H� �Iku-
il�l�l
�__ b
nn
"li�ln
� R
I11�
� �
� n
non
ii
IARp
rt=
-I I
f I
I
on�n�IbFII�Aj�A " " -n_A
n n II I n II n-II I
II II n
®1 o
�BI�p�IBBBBBB��afl
IIBAII
���bllnib�nenrlfLlle [
fir. n
[IL�(=nfJ1 =1f� =1aA�Y
eRenln� =R X11 =i� A� =A =A =A "
"Ae�
gl�ff�iv� �
�I I
I� �
�__ b
nn
"li�ln
� R
I11�
� �
� n
non
IARp
vp
r
M �
c
Y_ (Q
:2 U
= N
X r
W O
U
N
N
N
O
u
U
m
m
N I=
0
aye
E3o
._�..ZN
C I
Q
iS
W N
�a
O
I
N
a
\m
�
\
I
}
\
\\
/«
/ U.
k \§
k §'
k�
t`
\ ^
.� All
`Gw?
f��
|
r
\\
\�
°' $
}�46
-
\m
�
\
I
}
\
\\
/«
/ U.
k \§
k §'
k�
wa z � w eoe.aw'om.a xr n cr a wsmrt'.w a r n'>a..iszwm..aa.�..imw. a. s
c0 N
A O
w �
Q >
L �
X W
W
m
Y
N
N
W
c
C
fC
L
0
O
Z
t
U
of
a4i w
�m
m �
Q
E3o
�2N
[ � t
eo
wQ
�a
o�
d
N
M
Oi
a"
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
As indicated in Table 3 -1, each condominium unit will have a private storage room that will be located in
the sub - basement level. 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. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with
an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the
sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four
(4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage, and
five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street
grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile
elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the
apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built
prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building
by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level.
The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site
( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet
higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5. As a point
of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet, or
approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed emergency
exit). The basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the
street or Newport Bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepits are proposed at each above grade level.
The Project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments
are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the
site.
The Docks
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 as
illustrated in Exhibit 3 -18.
The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame,
concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to
remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks can
accommodate four (4) boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1)
guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats up to 100 -feet in length
and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan (Exhibit 3 -18).
The new docks will consist of 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 an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing
docks will be removed and 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). All guidepiles will be pre-
stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be
replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -24
I 1
O i
O
SZ
�hrc 1.
rj a
o�
�O 1
1•
i-
N l
� � 1
� U
O O
0 0
og
s� oN
n 8
N d
5 �
a 1^
b
\
Z�Y
WAY �
a
gSZ
p 1,
rr, �
40 ` �^
• 5
°o
z
fl C
r M
Ma
Y
V
t 0
xQ
W
U
KO
COD
Q
� 30
W Z N
C � t
C'p�'yyj w
W N
�a
o�
a
N
a
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
As illustrated in the Dock Replacement Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -18), the pile - supported pier walkway
between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired /replaced with a
structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The
existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The
gangway platform construction will include the repair or replacement of four (4) steel piles, timber framing
with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete
steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary.
Green Architecture Design Criteria
The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria. As a result, the
project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements that enhance the
project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the
environment. The active and passive "green" strategies that will be implemented include:
Passive Strategies
Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and
reduce energy usage.
• Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain
apertures.
• Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat
gain.
Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal
convection dynamics.
Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid
systems).
• Gray water retention for property irrigation.
• Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials.
• Integration of California drought tolerant landscape materials.
Active Strategies
• Solar domestic hot water and pool heating
• Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity
• Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems.
• Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist.
Other Design Elements
Renewable wood materials and sustainable fly ash concrete construction.
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures.
Cross ventilation systems.
Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems.
Construction Management Plan
A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project.
The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction
equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management
(e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery
requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -26
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring);
and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water
quality control and environmental protection measures). The Construction Management Plan is included
as Appendix B.
3.5 Project Phasing
The applicant is proposing to construct the project in four discrete phases over a period of approximately
32 months based on the schedule summarized in Table 3 -2. The Construction Management Plan is
presented in Appendix B. This schedule is preliminary and may change based, intervening weather
conditions or other unanticipated circumstances.
Table 3 -2
Proposed Construction Phasing
Phase
Construction Activities
Duration'
Asbestos and lead -based paint removal,
1
demolition, caisson placement and grading.
6 Months
Grading is comprised of three segments of
earth removal, and lagging
Concrete placement consisting of shotcrete
shoring, placement of structural slabs and
2
walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage
18 Months
systems. Integration of site drainage,
plumbing underground and electrical
underground s stems.
Metal study wall framing will begin on lower
levels and work up. Integration of rough
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems
will follow after steel stud walls are in place.
3Z
Both vehicular elevators will be installed and
13 Months
operational at this time. Installation of
windows and doors will occur, as will planting
of large plant materials at site's bayward side.
Finally, construction of the docks will occur.
Finishes will be installed. Exterior finishes
such as exterior plaster, roofing systems,
stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and
solar panels will be installed, as will the
4
balance of the landscaping and
11 Months
hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes,
softscape, landscape lighting and drainage
systems. Interior finishes will be installed,
including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone
and tile at counters, walls and floors.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -27
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
Phase Construction Activities Duration'
'Because of overlapping phases, the total duration of construction is estimated to be 32 months.
2Phase 3 will start before Phase 2 is completed so that the majority of Phase 2 and Phase 3 will occur
simultaneously.
SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture (February 23, 2008
3.6 Project Objectives
The Aerie Project Objectives are set forth below. Some of the Project Objectives consist of a general
introductory statement, complemented by reference to specific actions proposed by the Applicant to
achieve that Objective. Those specific listed actions, standing alone, are not the Project Objectives, but
provide both a qualitative and quantitative context to help the reader better understand the scope and
scale of the Applicant's Project's Objectives and assist in the comparative evaluation of the Project
Alternatives in the Project's Environmental Impact Report. For example, the specific actions listed under
Project Objective 6 are not intended to suggest, for instance, that a project alternative not providing a
drinking fountain at a public vantage point would not, therefore, meet Project Objective 6. Rather, the
combination of those specific listed actions is intended to allow assessment of the scope and scale of
Project Objective 6 by explaining how the Project itself intends to protect and enhance scenic views to
the harbor from public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood."
The Project Objectives are:
To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a
sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design
which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the
harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in
Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project
Objective 4.
2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year
old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design
principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b)
the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape
enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well
as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding
the new wiring.
3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with
an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving,
sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water
quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or
improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable
regulations.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -28
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
4. To provide amenities commensurate with most newer residential development in
comparable bayfront locations in the City. Such amenities generally include a dock for
each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities,
such as a swimming pool and fitness center.
5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street
parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit
project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the
number of resident and guest parking required for the project.
6. To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public
vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing
public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view
corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on
Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently
obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead
wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking
fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public
viewing experience.
To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible
development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b)
incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is
within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject
to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern,
organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff,
and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the
bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation.
8. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height
on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards.
3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements
Project implementation will necessitate the approval of the following discretionary actions by the Newport
Beach City Council:
General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006)
This action would change the land use designation of the 584 square foot portion of the parcel
located at 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20
dwelling units per acre) on the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002)
The amendment to the CLUP would result in a change in the Coastal Land Use Plan designation
of the same 584 square foot portion of the parcel at 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density
Residential — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10
dwelling units per acre).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -29
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description
Zone Change (CA2005 -009)
Approval of the zone change would change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion
of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multi-
family Residential, 2,178 square feet per unit).
• Tentative Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882)
TTM 16882 will combine the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place
with parcels identified as 201 — 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and will
subdivide the air space for eight (8) residential condominium units.
Modification Permit (MD2005 -087)
The modification permit would allow: (1) above and below grade building encroachments within
the 10 -foot front yard setback along Carnation Avenue; (2) 42 -inch high protective guard rails
within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue where they are restricted to 36
inches; (3) above and below grade building and balcony encroachments within the required 10' 7"
side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue; (4) and balcony encroachments within the 10'
7" side yard setback abutting Bayside Place.
Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002)
This permit would allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant
to Chapter 20.86 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 3 -30
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0— Environmental Analysis
CHAPTER 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This section documents the environmental analysis for those parameters for which the proposed Aerie
residential development project may or would result in potentially significant adverse impacts. These
parameters were identified based on the environmental analysis conducted for the project and reflected in
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and in comments received during
the 30 -day NOP comment period.
The purpose of Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) is to describe the existing environmental conditions
on the subject property and in the environs and to identify the potential impacts or consequences that may
result from implementation of the proposed project. In order to facilitate the analysis of each issue in this
EIR, a standard format was developed to analyze each issue. This format is presented below with a brief
discussion of the information included within each topic.
Existing Conditions
This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue
analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both
the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed
project. The existing conditions provide the baseline against which the potential environmental
impacts are evaluated.
Significance Criteria
Specific criteria have been identified upon which the significance of project - related potential
impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental
analysis contained in the Draft EIR are derived from the significant effects presented in Appendix
G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local, State, and federal policies and programs which
may apply, and other commonly accepted technical and non - technical standards.
Standard Conditions
The proposed project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions as
imposed by the City and /or other responsible agencies. The standard conditions will be identified
in this section of the Draft EIR.
Potential Impacts
This section of the Draft EIR identifies and describes the potential impacts, which will result from
project implementation. All project - related impacts have been clearly and adequately analyzed in
accordance with Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts that have been avoided or
reduced to a less than significant level are identified as "less than significant" and analyzed
accordingly. In order to facilitate the impact analysis, the following outline has been utilized.
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
Long -Term (Operational) Impacts
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0 — Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measures
Where a potential significant environmental effect has been identified in the environmental
analysis, mitigation measures have been included in this section of the document which ".. .
minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR ", as prescribed in Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
The residual impacts of the proposed project (i.e., impacts resulting after the implementation of
mitigation measures, if any) will be identified in this section of the EIR. Where potentially
significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation, they will be
identified. Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be
mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation. These significant effects will be
identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport
Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that
identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the
significant impacts.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.1.1 Existing Conditions
Existing Land Use
Existing site conditions and a description of the surrounding property are discussed in Chapter 3.0 (Project
Description).
Land Use Planning
Newport Beach General Plan
The City of Newport Beach completed the first comprehensive revision of the City's General Plan in over 30
years in 2006. The General Plan presents a vision for the city's future and a strategy to make that vision a
reality. The General Plan recognizes that the City is primarily a residential community with diverse coastal
and upland neighborhoods and is nearly fully developed. As a result, the Plan focuses on conserving the
existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long -term maintenance. The
discussion presented below provides a summary of each of the elements of the Comprehensive General
Plan.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element provides policy guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development anticipated
for full buildout of the City. It provides the basis for zoning regulations and other municipal code standards.
Because the City is nearly fully developed, this element focuses on how population and employment growth
can be accommodated yet still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. The subject property is
located within the residential area of Corona del Mar south of Bayside Drive. Specifically, the site is located
within Statistical Area F3, which encompasses the east side of the Newport Harbor entrance and Corona del
Mar State Beach. The land use designations within this statistical area include a range of residential
densities, including Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), Two Unit Residential (RT), and Multiple -Unit
Residential (RM). Other land use designations include Private Institutions (PI) and Parks and Recreation
(PR). The subject property is designated RM and RT. Exhibit 4.1 -1 illustrates the land use designations
adopted for the subject property and the surrounding area.
Harbor and Bay Element
This element of the General Plan addresses natural resources, community identity, and economic
characteristics of the City given the location of Newport Beach on the coast. Some aspects of the Harbor
and Bay Element address public access, water quality, and natural environment as well as land use
policies relating to the waterfront uses along Newport Harbor.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element governs the long -term mobility systems of the City. The goals and policies in this
element are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible
balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and
community character. Figure CE1 in the Circulation Element reflects the Citys Master Plan of Streets and
Highways. With the exception of Coast Highway, no Master Plan roadways are located in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property. The Circulation Element also includes the Bikeways Master Plan (refer to
Figure CE4 in the Circulation Element). As indicated in that figure, a Class I Bikeway (i.e., off -road paved
facility) is identified north of the site on Bayside Drive approximately 700 feet northeast of the project site. The
City has also adopted an Equestrian and Hiking Trails Master Plan (refer to Figure CE5 in the Circulation
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aede PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
Element). None of these existing and proposed trails, which are confined to the area north of the Upper
Newport Bay and south of San Joaquin Hills Road, exist within the vicinity of the project.
Safety Element
The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and
economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human - induced hazards. The Newport Beach
Safety Element provides policy guidance related to coastal hazards (e.g., tsunamis, coastal erosion, etc.),
geologic hazards (e.g., slope failures, adverse soils conditions, etc.), seismic hazards (e.g., liquefaction,
ground shaking, etc.), flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials (e.g., hazardous
waste, leaking underground storage tanks, etc.) aviation hazards, and disaster planning.
Coastal Hazards
Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability /high risk events such as tsunamis as well as isolated
hazard that include storm surges and coastal erosion. The Safety Element addresses these
potential hazards, which are generally limited to the portions of the City located immediately adjacent
to the coast, within and adjacent to Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay areas. A portion of
the subject property is located within the limits of the 100 -year zone established for tsunami
inundation at extreme high tide identified in Figure S1 (Coastal Hazards) in the Safety Element.
Geologic Hazards
The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San
Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This along with sea level fluctuations related
to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards that have
the potential to cause loss or harm to the community and /or the environment. The major geologic
constraints identified in the Safety Element include slope failure, compressible soils, and expansive
soils. Based on that Figure S2 (Seismic Hazards), the site is not underlain by adverse conditions,
and is subject to the potential for slope failure as indicated on that exhibit in the Safety Element.
Seismic Hazards
The greatest potential for seismic activity to affect the City of Newport Beach is activity occurring
along the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the Whittier Fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills Fault zone,
and the Elysian Park Fault zone, which with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes
that would result in ground shaking in the City and in nearby communities. Other secondary seismic
effects include liquefaction and seismically- induced slope failure. However, no portion of the site is
identified in the Safety Element as subject to potential liquefaction associated with seismic activity.
Flood Hazards
The Safety Element also addresses potential flooding associated with significant storm events. The
100- and 500 -year flood zones within the City of Newport Beach have been mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the FEMA studies, no portion of the subject
property is subject to inundation resulting from either a 100- or 500 -year storm event.
Fire Hazard
The City's Safety Element also addresses wildland fire hazards (refer to Figure S4). The City is
distinguished by three classifications if fire susceptibility, including: High, Moderate, and Low /None;
the City does not contain 'Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as defined by Government Code
Section 51179. The majority of the City, including the subject site is identified to have a Low /None
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
classification for fire susceptibility potential. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001
California Fire Code with City amendments and some exceptions. These provisions include
construction standards in new structures and remodels, road widths and configurations designed to
accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates
for water mains.
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Materials component of the Safety Element addresses several areas related to
hazardous materials, including toxic release inventory, hazardous waste, leaking underground
storage tanks, oil fields, methane gas mitigation districts, and hazards overlay. The Safety Element
includes programs for ensuring that the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the
environment is minimized.
Aviation Hazards
The City of Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport (JWA); however,
the subject property is located approximately five miles southwest of JWA, which generates nearly all
of the aviation traffic affecting the City of Newport Beach. Although the accident potential zones
delineated for JWA are located in the areas adjacent to and surrounding the airport, three areas
within the City were found to be subject to increased vulnerability to aviation hazards due to the
location and orientation of runways and flight patterns: portions of the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa
Island, and Upper Newport Bay. However, no portion of the subject property has been identified as
subject potential aviation hazards.
Disaster Planning
Any potential hazard occurring in the City of Newport Beach resulting from either man -made or
natural disasters may require the evacuation of residents of the City. In order to facilitate such
evacuation, the City employs the Standardized Emergency Management System for emergency
response. This system provides for assistance by one or more emergency response agencies as
well as the potential implementation of other policies and plans from the County of Orange, State of
California and /or federal government. In addition, the City has adopted an Emergency Management
Plan that is implemented in the event of any emergency. This plan is prepared and updated by the
Newport Beach Fire Department.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) and to foster the availability of housing to all income levels to the extent possible given the
constraints within the City. The Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the Citys housing policies
and services as a specific guide for implementation of these policies and is closely correlated with the Land
Use Element. The Element examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and
establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. According to the updated data
presented in the Housing Element, the City had a total of 42,143 housing units in 2005, including
approximately 62 percent of the homes that were single - family detached and attached, 17 percent duplex to
fourplex units, 23 percent multiple - family homes, and two percent mobile homes. The site is designated as
RM and RT and, therefore, is intended to contribute to the supply of housing within the City of Newport
Beach.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Noise Element
Section 4.1— Land Use and
The Noise Element serves as a tool for including noise control in the planning process, which is intended to
ensure land use compatibility. This element identifies noise sensitive land uses as well as the sources of
noise, defines areas of noise impacts for the purpose of developing policies intended to protect residents and
sensitive receptors from the effects of excessive noise. The most common noise sources in the City of
Newport Beach include the existing freeway/highway system and the major arterial roadways extending
throughout the City. In addition, aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport (JWA) also result in
noise excessive noise levels in parts of the City. Other aircraft operations related to helicopter operations at
Hoag Hospital are also a source of noise that affects residential uses in the vicinity of the hospital. Newport
Beach has the largest small boat harbor in Southern California. The operations of the small motorized boats
generate undesirable noise in proximity to residences. Non - transportation related noise sources include
restaurant/bar /entertainment establishments, mixed -use structures, mechanical equipment, and recreational
facilities. Figures N1 and N5 in the Noise Element indicate that no portion of the property is subject to either
existing or future vehicular noise associated with traffic on the surface roadways in the project environs. In
addition, the site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour established for aircraft operations at
JWA. The Noise Element articulates policies that are intended to ensure that construction noise is minimized
to avoid impacts to sensitive land uses through limitations on hours of truck deliveries and enforcement of the
Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on the hours of maintenance and /or construction activity in or
adjacent to residential areas.
Natural Resources Element
The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide policy direction regarding the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies the City's natural resources and
policies for their preservation, development and use. The element addresses water supply and water quality,
air quality, biological resources, open space, cultural and scientific resources, mineral resources, visual
resources, and energy. Although no portion of the site is identified as a potential resource, Figure NR1 in the
Natural Resources Element identified an eelgrass bed in proximity to the subject property; however, this area
is not identified as an environmental study area (ESA) on Figure NR2. Important biological resources are
limited to the coastal areas, Newport Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay and the areas adjacent to it (refer to
Figure NR1 in the Natural Resources Element. This element of the General Plan also addresses aesthetic
resources, with emphasis on coastal views. Figure NR3 in the Natural Resources Element identifies Ocean
Boulevard as a Coastal View Road and the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is designated
as a Public View Point. Begonia Park is also located approximately one quarter mile northwest of the site.
Historical Resources Element
This Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's cultural, historic and
paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within the element are intended to recognize,
maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures.
Figure HR1 (Historic Resources) in the Historical Resources Element identifies the historic resources
includes on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, other historic sites or
potentially historic sites in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database, and other
historic sites in the City's Register. None of the sites identified in Figure HR1 are located on the project site.
Recreation Element
The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the balance between the provision of
sufficient parks and recreation facilities are appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport
Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in the Recreation Element address parks and
recreation facilities (278 acres of developed parks), recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation
and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The existing recreational facilities are identified
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and
on Figure R1 in the Recreation Element. Begonia Park is located north of the subject property. The site is
within the viewshed of portions of the recreational facility.
Newport Beach is divided into recreation service areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably
administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The subject property is
located within Service Area 10 (i.e., Corona del Mar). The land dedicated to recreational facilities in this
service area is mostly within Corona del Mar State Beach. There is a deficit of 9.1 acres of combined
park/beach acreage within this service area. The Service Area 10 Recreation and Open Space Plan (refer to
Figure R3 in the Recreation Element) reflects the distribution of beaches and public park facilities.
Arts and Cultural Element
The goals and policies of the Arts and Cultural Element are intended to serve as a guide for meeting the
future cultural needs of the community. The City's Arts Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City
Council on matters including artistic aspects of the City. This commission also participates in the designation
of historical landmarks and reviews design elements for public sculpture, fountains, murals, benches, and
other fixtures.
Newport Beach Local Coastal Program
The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone and is subject to the land use regulations prescribed
in the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) certified by the Coastal Commission in 2005. The City does not have a
certified implementation plan and, therefore, the City does not have coastal development permit jurisdiction.
The CLUP was derived from the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The land use intensity or residential
density limit is prescribed in the CLUP. Although the Land Use Element may contain more precise
development limits for specific properties, the land use intensity or residential density limit that is the most
protective of coastal resources takes precedence should a conflict exist with the CLUP. However, in no case
shall the policies of the CLUP be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit
established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. As previously identified, the subject property
is designated RM -A, with a small parcel (i.e., 584 square feet) designated RM -D.
In addition to identifying goals and policies for future development within the Citys coastal zone, the CLUP
identified several planning study areas that encompass certain areas of the City that are characterized by
unique land use and /or development characteristics that cannot be properly addressed through standard land
use designations; however, the subject property is not located within one of the planning study areas. The
CLUP prescribes the development review process, which requires a coastal development permit prior to
commencement of any development in the coastal zone, with the exceptions of development in areas where
the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction, developments where an amendment to a Coastal
Commission - issued permit is required, developments determined to be categorically excluded according to
the categories and standards established by the Coastal Commission, and developments determined to be
excluded from the coastal development permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
30610 and its implementing regulations. The proposed project is subject to the City's coastal development
review process.
Zoning
The subject property is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential) and MFR (2178) (Multiple Family Residential —
2,178 square feet of land area /dwelling unit). These zoning classifications are consistent with the adopted
General Plan land use designations, which would allow both single - family and higher density multiple - family
residential development on the site. The R -2 zoning would permit up to _ dwelling units /acre; the MFR
zoning would permit up to 20 du /ac.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -5
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning
SCAG Policies and Proarams
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency that was
established under the California Government Code. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as
a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) having the mandated roles and responsibilities described
below.
As the region's MPO, SCAG is required to maintain a continuing cooperative and comprehensive
transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional
Transportation Improvement Program. Further, as the RTPA, SCAG is also responsible for both
preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
(RTIP).
SCAG is also responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use,
housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South
Coast Air quality Management Plan and is responsible for determining conformity of projects, plans and
programs to the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
The Growth Management chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains several
policies that are particularly applicable to the proposed project, including those related to population, housing
and employment and the provision of adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The Growth Management
chapter contains goals to improve the regional standard of living, quality of life, and to provide social, political,
and cultural diversity. The Air Quality chapter of the RCPG contains core actions related to development to
ensure that regional air quality goals and objectives are met. In addition, the Water Quality chapter also
contains core recommendations and policy options to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the nation's water and to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are
necessary to protect the beneficial uses of all waters.
4.1.2 Significance Criteria
Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and
goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be
considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use as identified in Appendix G
of the State CEQA Guidelines:
• Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
• Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
• Physically dividing an established community.
• Substantial or extreme use incompatibility.
Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use
plan.
• Inconsistency or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious our scientific
uses of the area.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning
4.1.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for the Aerie project shall be reviewed for consistency with
applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code,
and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits.
SC 4 -1 -2 The property owner(s) 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.
4.1.4 Potential Impacts
4.1.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
No short-term land use impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.
4.1.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts
Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The proposed project is subject to the applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and relevant
policies. As indicated previously, the subject property is designated RT (Two Unit Residential) and RM
(Multiple Unit Residential — 20 du /ac). The applicant is proposing to amend the Newport Beach General
Plan to elimination the RT land use designation on a small portion of the site and replace it with the RM
land use to be consistent with the RM land use designation in the project area. The relationship of the
proposed project with the Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan adopted by the City of Newport
Beach is presented below.
Newport Beach General Plan
Although a small portion of the project site is currently designated RT (Two -Unit Residential), the majority
of the site is zoned RM (Multiple -Unit Residential), which allows for a density of up to 20 dwelling units per
acre. The applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the RT component of the
site as RM on the Land Use Element Map. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the
proposed RM designation with the approval of the proposed amendment.
The Newport Beach General Plan includes several policies that guide development in the City. The
consistency analysis presented in Table 4.1 -1 reflects the relationship of the proposed project with the
applicable policies contained within the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.1 -1
General Plan Policy Analysis
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan Policy
Consistent Analysis
Land Use Element
The proposed project respects the site's topographic
Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique
features by adhering to the PLOED defined by the City
character of the different neighborhoods, business
Council, which protects the majority of the bluff, the rock
districts, and harbor that together identify Newport
outcroppings and natural cove. The architectural style of
LU 1.1
Beach. Locate and design development to reflect
the project reflects an organic, modem /contemporary style
Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity,
that promotes architectural diversity in the City. The
and view sheds.
location and design protects and enhances existing public
views and the existing visual quality of the site to the
benefit of the neighborhood and City.
The area in which the site is located is characterized by a
variety of single- and multiple - family residential homes that
reflect a range of densities and a variety of architectural
While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its
styles, which contribute to the unique character of Corona
neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the
del Mar. Both the density of the proposed project and the
LU 1.2
entire City that differentiates it as a special place within
proposed reuse of the site are consistent with the variety
the Southern California region.
of densities and styles within the area, which is consistent
"identity'
with the of the City. The distinctive architectural
character of the proposed structure is consistent with the
City's desire to differentiate Newport Beach from other
coastal cities.
As indicated above, the proposed project has been
designed to complement the natural features of the area,
including the bluff, cove and harbor area. The "curvilinear'
features reflected in the design of the proposed residential
structure will allow the building to conform to the bluff
when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the
existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed
colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the
project' mass has been broken by the physical separation
between the two main structural elements. Finally, the
bluff face below the proposed structure would be
landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials.
The project's design also preserves the area's visual,
recreational, and habitat resources. First, as discussed in
Section 4.5 of the EIR, the project will contribute to the
Protect the natural setting that contributes to the
diversity of form and scale of the development that
character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense
currently exists in the City and will not adversely affect
LU 1.3
of place it provides for its residents and visitors.
views from important vantages within the area identified by
Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor,
the City. Several visual simulations presented in Section
parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual,
4.5 reveal that the project will not have a significant
recreational and habitat resources.
adverse aesthetic Impact on visual resources. In addition,
unlike the existing multi - family apartment structure, the site
design does not extend below the PLOED established by
the City Council, except for the dock access /emergency
exit; however, that feature is recessed into the bluff to be
nearly imperceptible when viewed from the harbor.
Second, the project will not adversely affect public access
to the small beach area locate don the project site.
Although direct public access to the beach area is not
available either from the project site or another nearby
public coastal access point, this area will remain
accessible to the public via the harbor.
Finally, habitat resources on the project site (e.g.,
eelgrass) would be preserved. As discussed in Section
4.7 of the EIR, the incorporate of mitigation measures will
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan Poli2z
Consistency Analysis
ensure that the impacts to terrestrial and marine biological
resources are reduced to a less than significant level. In
addition, the SOMP prepared for the project would also
result in the implementation of BMPs that currently do not
exist, resulting in an improvement to surface water
discharges into the harbor emanating from the site.
The project proposes only eight residential dwelling units
in a single structure. This density of the project is below
the density permitted by both the General Plan (i.e., 20
Implement a conservative growth strategy that
du /ac) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (9 units
enhances the quality of life of residents and balances
allowed on the project site). This is consistent with the
LU 1.4
the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of
conservative growth strategy discussed in Policy LU 1.4.
open space and natural resources.
In addition, project implementation would not result In
impacts to open space and where potentially significant
impacts to nature resources are identified (e.g., eelgrass),
mitigation measures have been prescribed, which are
consistent with adopted policies for such mitigation.
As indicated in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), although project
implementation will result in the introduction of a different
structure on the site, views from important public vantages
(e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In
addition, views through the site from the "public view point"
at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the
project would be enhanced. The view angle through the
site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic
increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of
LU 1.6
and visual resources that include open space,
project implementation. The proposed project also
mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from
includes a view "window" at the northerly property limits,
public vantage points.
which currently does not exist. Finally, the project will
result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when
viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing
development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet
NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed
at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88. As a result, project
implementation will result in an increase of approximately
10 additional vertical feet of bluff face when compared to
the existing conditions.
Project implementation will not adversely affect the use of
either the harbor or waterfront and will not conflict with
Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that
either recreational or commercial boaters. The boat dock
contribute to the charm and character of Newport
below the site will be replaced to accommodate the 8
LU 2.5
Beach and provided needed support for recreational
residents of the project and one guest boat, which is
and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with
consistent with the City's madne- oriented character. The
appropriate regulations necessary to protect the
replacement dock has been designed to comply with
interests of all users as well as adjoining residents.
existing marine navigation requirements and will not
encroach into the harbor in a way that would adversely
affect boating lanes.
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and
The project applicant is proposing to redevelop an existing
corridors, allowing for reuse and infill with uses that are
site that was developed in 1949 and 1955. The existing
complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
dwelling units are older than many in the Corona del Mar
Changes in use and /or density/intensity should be
neighborhood. The age and architectural character of the
considered only in those areas that are economically
existing residential structure contrast with the character
under performing, are necessary to accommodate
and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled
Newport Beach's share of projected regional
and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes
LU 3.2
population growth, improve the relationship and reduce
that provide visual interest and variety, especially
commuting distance between home and jobs, or
compared to the older and more mundane features of the
enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as
existing buildings on the subject property. The proposed
a special place to live for its residents. The scale of
infll project will introduce a new multiple - family structure
growth and new development shall be coordinated with
that complements the existing neighborhood and is in
the provision of adequate infrastructure and public
keeping with the intent of Policy LU 3.2. When compared
services, including standards for acceptable traffic level
to the existing apartment building, the proposed project
of service.
introduces a modern architectural style. The overhead
utility pole on Carnation Avenue will be eliminated in
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -9
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan Policy
Consistency Analysis
connection with the project. In addition, the building
setback at the south end of the subject property has been
increased to expand the existing view corridor between the
site and that the south. As a result, the project will both
enhance the neighborhood itself, as well as the public
views through the project site.
With upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin,
adequate infrastructure and public services are available
to serve the project. Therefore, project implementation
would result in an improvement in infrastructure service to
the area. All of the remaining infrastructure facilities (e.g.,
sewer, water, police and fire protection, etc.) have
adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project.
The site has been designed to protect the existing natural
resource values. With only one minor exception (i.e., dock
access /emergency exit), the development will not extend
below the predominant line of existing development
established by the City Council for the site. In fact, project
implementation will result in an increase of approximately
10 additional vertical feet of bluff face as compared to
existing conditions. In addition, views from the Ocean
Boulevard "public view point" adjacent to site will be
enhanced by increasing the view angle by approximately
Require that new development is located and designed
76 percent from that location. Important views from other
to protect areas with high natural resource value and
public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) have also been
LU 3.7
protect residents and visitors from threats to life or
preserved. Furthermore, the site has been designed to
property.
avoid potentially significant water quality impacts by
containing and treating water on -site before discharging it
into the harbor. Impacts to other important natural
resources in the cove and harbor (e.g., eelgrass, etc.)
have also been avoided or, where adverse biological
resource impacts had the potential to occur, they have
been mitigated to a less than significant level.
The project has been designed to protect residents and
visitors from threats to life or property. Project security
measures including both interior and exterior cameras,
motion sensors, regular security patrols, safe rooms, etc.
The requested amendment to the Land Use Element of
the Newport Beach General Plan would affect only a very
small parcel (584 square feet, or less than one percent of
Accommodate land use development consistent with
the 61,282 square foot project site). As a result, the
LU 4.1
the Land Use Plan.
proposed amendment would not directly affect land use
consistency or compatibility. Furthermore, the project's
density is below the density permitted by both the General
Plan (20 du /ac) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (9
units ) on the project site.
The site is located in a mixed residential area that is
Require that the height of development in
characterized by a variety of residential densities,
nonresidential and higher density residential areas
including both single- and multiple- family residential
LU 5.1.2
transition as it nears lower density residential areas to
development. The proposed structure has a maximum
minimize conflicts at the interface between the different
building height of approximately 32 feet, consistent with
types of development.
other homes In the project area. The project's height is,
on average, approximately four feet below the Municipal
Code's maximum height limit.
Require that multi - family dwellings be designed to
The existing single- and multiple- family residential
convey a high quality architectural character in
structures were built prior to 1960 and are dated in their
accordance with the following principles (other than
architectural style and character. The proposed project
LU 5.1.9
Newport Center and Airport Area) which are guided
has been designed to reflect a modem character, which
,
by Goals 6.14 and 6.15: Building Elevations, Ground
complements the variety of architectural styles that exist
Floor Treatment, Roof Design, Parking, and Open
within the Corona del Mar neighborhood. The
Space and Amenity.
condominium structure complies with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code's building height requirements and is
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -10
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
HB 9.2
HB 9.3
H 1.1
HR 2.1
Permit and design bulkheads and groins to protect the
character of the existing beach profiles and to restore
eroded beach profiles found around the harbor and
island perimeters, and the safe navigation and berthing
of vessels.
Limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers,
floats, groins, appurtenances related to marine
activities, and public walkways.
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
materials. Adequate on -site parking is provided and the
project also includes the on -site recreational amenities and
a replacement boat dock to serve future residents.
The proposed project reflects a distinctive architectural
character that continues the tradition of architectural
variety and diversity within the City and neighborhood.
The project design complies with the principles for building
elevations (e.g., street and ocean - facing elevations
designed with high quality finishes, windows, doors, etc.).
In addition, the project has been designed to avoid blank
walls and unsightly utility spaces. The roof profiles provide
modulation through undulation, which provides visual
interest and variety when compared to other roof profiles
in the area. Parking is provided In several below -grade
spaces. Finally, the PLOED has been respected to
maintain that element as an open space feature and
common open space has also been provided to ensure
recreation opportunities (e.g., swimming pool) are
Annougn no oulkneaos are proposed, the applicant is
proposing to replace the existing four -sllp boat dock with
one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip.
Implementation of the proposed boat dock will neither
adversely affect beach profiles in the harbor nor adversely
affect safe navigation within the harbor because the dock
has been designed to avoid such impacts (e.g., extend
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip
boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats
and a guest slip. The portions of the proposed dock built
bayward of the bulkhead line are limited to pre- stressed
concrete piles set In pre- drilled holes and timber docks
supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons. No
aspect of the dock would either impede navigation in the
harbor or create a safety hazard because the facilities
does not extend into the navigable channel.
Element
Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain,
and improve availability and quality of existing housing
and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full
utilization of existing City housing resources for as long
into the future as physically and economically possible.
existing dwelling units, including a single - family residence
and a 14 -unit apartment building. Project implementation
will result in the development of an 8 -unit condominium
building In place of the 15 existing dwelling units.
Although project implementation would result in fewer
residential dwelling units than currently exist on the site (or
is permitted by the existing land use and zoning
designations), the new dwelling units represent an
improvement in quality over the existing units, which were
constructed 50 to 60 years ago. The age of the existing
residential structures contracts with the character and
quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled
and /or rebuilt over the vears.
Historical Resources Element
Require that, in accordance with CEOA, new
development protect and preserve paleontological and
archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid
and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through
planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the
not result in potential impacts to paleontological and
archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must
comply with State law in the event human remains are
encountered. In addition, because the Monterey
Formation is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -11
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan Policy
Consistency Analysis
paleontological resources and require that the impact
identified to address potential impacts to such fossils.
caused by any development be mitigated in
Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by
accordance with CEQA.
the project applicant to develop a Paleontological
Resource Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the
guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 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 rind has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered
during project construction shall be prepared to a point of
identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any
discover, along with supporting documentation and an
itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the
collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to
accession any collection swill be the responsibility of the
project applicant.
Circulation Element
On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Packing
Code requirements. At least two parking spaces are
provided and designated for each unit, with an additional
eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart
parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the
basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second
Require that new development provide adequate,
Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of
CE 7.1.1
convenient parking for residents, guest, business
Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1)
patrons, and visitors.
two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well
as bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking
accommodations. The Second Floor parking is directly
accessible via a ramp from Carnation Avenue. Resident
parking is accessible via Carnation Avenue utilizing two
automobile elevators. All project parking is hidden from
public view.
The proposed project has been designed to accommodate
all resident and guest parking on -site. The Aerie Corona
del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment
prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., determined that
Site and design new development to avoid use of
the proposed automobile elevator system can adequately
CE 7.1.8
parking configurations or management programs that
accommodate resident and guest parking in the lower
are difficult to maintain and enforce.
levels of the proposed structure without substantial back-
up onto Carnation Avenue. In addition, guest, bicycle, golf
cart, and motorcycle parking are all provided below grade
on the Second Floor, and will not utilize the proposed
automobile elevators stem for ingress/egress.
No new curb cuts are proposed. As indicated above,
adequate on -site parking for residents and guests is
provided. Project implementation will not result in any loss
Require new development to minimize curb cuts or
of existing on -street parking. In fact, because the length of
CE 7.1.11
protect on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to
the curb cut on the project site has been substantially
create on street parking spaces wherever feasible.
reduced, the project will create three additional on- street
parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking
spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly
during the peak summer /tourist season.
Recreation Element
Require developers of new residential subdivisions to
The project includes private recreational amenities,
provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as
including a swimming pool, recreation room, and private
stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or
boat dock. In addition, in compliance with Policy R 1.1,
R 1.1
contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public
the project applicant will comply with the existing City's
recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the
Park Dedication Fee Ordinance through the contribution of
development's resident population, as required in the
in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation
City's park Dedication Fees Ordinance.
facilities.
R 8.5
Protect and, where feasible, expand and enhance:
The proposed project include the replacement of the
guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at
existing 4 -boat dock with a facility that will accommodate 9
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -12
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1—Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan Policy
Consistency Analysis
privately owned marinas, restaurants and other
boats, including one for each of the project's 8 dwelling
appropriate locations
I units and one guest slip.
Natural Resources Element
The project applicant will be required to comply with the
Require all development to comply with the regulations
NPDES requirements established by the City, including
NR 3.4
under the City's municipal separate storm drain system
the preparation of a SWPPP to address construction
permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
activities and a WQMP for long -term operations of the
Elimination System (NPDES).
project. A draft SWPPP and WQMP have been prepared
and submitted to the City of Newport Beach.
As indicated above, the proposed project will Implement
NR 3.5
Require that development does not degrade natural
BMPS to improve the quality of both construction- related
water bodies.
and long -term runoff emanating from the site prior to their
discharge into Newport Harbor.
Require new development applications to include a
NR 3.9
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize
Refer to Response to Policy No. NR 3.4.
runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -
construction.
The proposed project complies with the requirement to
Include site design and source control BMPS in all
prepare a SWPPP and WQMP to address both
developments. When the combination of site design
construction and post - development water quality impacts.
and source control BMPS are not sufficient to protect
Both site design and structural BMPS have been
W
NR 3.11
water quality as required by the NPDES, structural
incorporate into the project to ensure that surface flows
treatment BMPS will be implemented along with site
emanating from the subject property are treated prior to
design and source control measures.
their discharge into Newport Harbor. The SWPPP and
WQMP are sufficient to protect water quality as required
by the NPDES.
As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution
and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared and
Require gradingterosion control plans with structural
establishes both structural and non - structural BMPS in order
NR 4.4
BMPS that prevent or minimize erosion during and after
to reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction
construction for development on steep slopes, graded,
phase. These measures will be incorporated in the
or disturbed area.
gradinglerosion control plans submitted to the City of
Newport Beach. In addition, the applicant has prepared a
WQMP to address post-development water quality impacts.
The proposed project will comply with all South Coast
AQMD rules and requisite local, state and federal
requirements to reduce air pollutant emissions during
construction. Section 4.3 of the EIR identifies potential
Require developers to use and operate construction
construction- related impacts, compliance with standard
NR 8.1
equipment, use building materials and paints, and
conditions, and mitigation measures that will employed to
control dust created by construction activities to
ensure that construction air pollutant emissions are
minimize air pollutants.
minimized. Based on the emissions estimated for each
phase of the project's construction (as detailed in the
project Construction Management Plan), the EIR
concludes that none of the significance thresholds for any
of the pollutants would be exceeded on a daily basis.
Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed with
an 8 -unit condominium structure will not result in
potentially significant impacts to any sensitive terrestrial
plan or animal species or habitat. Although it is possible
Require that the siting and design of new development,
that some direct and indirect impacts to the existing
including landscaping and public access, protect
eelgrass bed located in the harbor area adjacent to the
NR 10.4
sensitive or rare resources against any significant
site mould be impacted during construction of the proposed
disruption of habitat values.
replacement dock facility, pre- and post - construction
surveys have been prescribed to document any loss of
eelgrass, which would be offset by replacement at a 1.2 to
1 ratio as prescribed In Section 4.7.5. As a result, the EIR
concludes that impacts to terrestrial and marine biological
resources will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera manna) to the
As indicated in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources),
NR 11.3
extent feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in
potential direct and indirect Impacts to eelgrass may occur
accordance with the Southern California Eel grass I
as a result of construction activities associated with the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -13
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 41 — Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
General Plan Policy
ConsistenU Analysis
Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of
proposed replacement dock facility. However, MM 4.7 -1a
eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where
and MM 47-1b require pre- and post - construction surveys
feasible.
and prescribe the Implementation of eelgrass mitigation in
accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy as indicated in this policy. As a result,
the EIR concludes that impacts to terrestrial and marine
biological resources will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
The proposed replacement dock has been designed to
ensure that it is consistent with the surrounding area within
the harbor. For Instance, the new docks will consist of
timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic
pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than
Require that all structures permitted to encroach Into
concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as
NR 14.5
open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited
close to an existing rock outcropping as possible and
and designed to be consistent with the natural
minimize the dock's visual impact. In addition, the dock
appearance of the surrounding area.
extends only to the pierhead line, consistent with City
requirements and neighboring development. It does not
encroach Into the navigable waters of Newport Harbor.
The dock facility will be subject to review and approval by
the City to ensure that it complies with all applicant
requirements.
Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts
to cultural and scientific resources. As indicated In that
section, no impacts to cultural (i.e., archaeological)
resources are anticipated; however, the proposed project
may impact paleontological resources that may exist within
Require new development to protect and preserve
the Monterey formation. As a result, a qualified
paleontological and archaeological resources from
paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to
destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such
develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation
resources in accordance with the requirements of
Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of
NR 18.1
CEQA. Through planning policies and permit
Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are
conditions, ensure the preservation of significant
encountered during construction activities, ground -
archaeological and paleontological resources and
disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall
require that the impact caused by any development be
be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has
mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
been salvaged. Any fossils discovered dudng project
construction shall be prepared to a point of identification
and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discover, along
with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue,
shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable
repository. Curation costs to accession any collection swill
be the responsibility of the project applicant.
As indicated in Section 4.10, 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,
Notify cultural organizations, including Native American
which requires consultation with Native Amedcan
organizations, of proposed development that have the
representatives before adopting or amending a general
NR 18.3
potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow
plan. The City has complied with the requirements of SB
qualified representative of such groups to monitor
18 by submitting a request to the Native American
grading and /or excavation of development sites.
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.
Require new development, where on site preservation
MM 4.10 -1 requires that any discovery of fossils or related
and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically
paleontological materials, shall be accessioned into the
valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to
collections of a suitable repository, along with supporting
NR 18.4
a responsible public or private institution with a suitable
documentation and an itemized catalogue. Curation costs
repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange
to accession any collections are the responsibility of the
county, whenever possible.
project applicant.
NR 20.1
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic 1
As indicated in section 4.5 (Aesthetes), although project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -14
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan 13011
Consistency Analysis
and visual resources that include open space,
implementation will result in the introduction of a different
mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from
structure on the site, views from important public vantages
public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3.
(e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In
addition, views through the site to" the "public view point"
at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the
project would be enhanced. The view angle through the
site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be
increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of
project implementation. In addition, views of the turning
basin would also be created along the northern property
boundary as a result of the proposed project. Finally, the
project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's
bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of
existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet
NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed
at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, resulting in an increase of
approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face when
compared to the existing conditions.
Protect and enhance public view corridors from the
A Public View Point is located on Ocean Boulevard south
following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3),
of Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will enhance
NR 20.3
and other locations may be identified in the future
the view from the designated view location. The view
(Ocean Boulevard).
window at this location will be expanded by approximately
76 percent i.e., from 25 degrees to about 44 degrees).
Design and site new development, including
Landscaping will be incorporated into the project design to
NR 20.4
landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors,
complement the proposed structure and enhance the
including those down public streets, to frame, accent,
visual character of the residential building and complement
and minimize impacts to public views.
the aesthetic character in the neighborhood.
The proposed project is located in an area of Corona del
Mar that is developed. Sidewalks exist along the streets to
accommodate pedestrians walking in the neighborhood.
As previously indicated, a Public View Point is located on
Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing
Ocean Boulevard south of Carnation Avenue. Project
NR 20.5
areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible.
implementation will enhance the view from the designated
view location. The view window at this location will be
expanded by approximately 76 percent (i.e., from 25
degrees to about 44 degrees). In addition, the project
design includes a bench and fountain, which will
accommodate pedestrians.
Support programs to remove and underground
Project implementation will result in the undergrounding of
NR 21.3
overhead utilities, in new development as well as
overhead utility poles and facilities along Camation
existing neighborhoods.
Avenue near Ocean Boulevard, which will enhance the
visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood.
The Corona del Mar community is represented by a variety
of architectural styles and designs and is characterized by
a range of smaller single- family detached residences to
large, multiple- family structures when viewed from the
harbor. Introduction of the proposed multiple - family
structure will be similar in both physical mass and
character, which is vaned and diverse architecturally, as
the existing development in the immediate neighborhood.
Although the proposed multiple family structure would be
Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of
larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it
NR 22.1
structures consistent with the unique character and
would be small than the Channel Reef development
visual scale of Newport Beach.
located to the south as illustrated in several of the visual
simulations (refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the project's
structural elements will appear to be "broken," giving the
impression of two structures, when viewed from the bay in
order to reduce the overall scale of the structure. The
massing is further reduce with the incorporation of
landscape features, including trees and shrubs, which also
serve to soften the structure.
NR 23.1 1
Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock I
The project site encompasses a south-facing bluff. A
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -15
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
General Plan Policy
Consistent Mal is
outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration
small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by
of the site's natural topography and preserve the
rock outcroppings. Although development will extend
features as a visual resource.
down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet above
the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED identified by the City Council,
the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below that
elevation with the exception of the dock
access /emergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet
NAVD88. However, the access would be recessed and
designed to minimize the alteration of the natural
appearance of the bluff.
The proposed project has been designed to complement
the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilinear" features
reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure
will allow the building to conform to the bluff when
compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing
residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are
consistent with the natural environment, and the project's
mass has been broken by the physical separation between
the two main structural elements. Finally, the man -made
features (e.g., concrete remnants, pipes, etc., would be
removed from the site and the bluff face below the
proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced
with native plant materials.
Development of the proposed dock facility will occur in the
water beyond the cove; none of the rock outcroppings
would be affected by the construction of the proposed
dock facility (or the residential structure above). Although
some views of the cove and rock features below the bluff
from some vantages in the harbor would be partially or
totally obscured by the proposed dock facility, the
obstruction would be brief and intermittent only as one
travels in and out of the harbor. As a result, visual Impacts
are not permanent and are not significant.
The project's principle structure and major accessory
structures will extend down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (i.e.,
approximately two feet above the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED
established by the City Council). The exception is the
Require all new blufftop development located on a bluff
location of an emergency access at elevation 40.5 feet
subject to marine erosion to be setback based on the
NAVD88. However, this feature has been recessed to
predominant line of development. This requirement
minimize its impact on the visual character of the bluff
NR 23.4
shall apply to the principal structure and major
when viewed from the harbor. Furthermore, the project
accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools.
complies with the development standards prescribed in the
The setback shall be increased where necessary to
MFR zoning. Project implementation will not result in
ensure safety and stability of the development.
potential safety impacts or adversely affect the stability of
the development. As indicated In the geotechnical
analysis prepared for the project, the site is suitable for
development with the incorporation of the measures
identified by the geotechnical consultant.
Require new accessory structures, such as decks,
patios and walkways that do not require structural
NR 23.5
foundations to be sited at least 10 feet from the edge of
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.3.8 -9 (Table 4.1 -2).
bluffs subject to marine erosion. Require accessory
structures to be removed or relocated landward when
threatened bv erosion, instability or other hazards.
The project has been designed to avoid impacts to native
vegetation. Current project design features avoid the
Design and site new development to minimize the
coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the
NR 23.7
removal of native vegetation, preserve rock
north side of the project site that extends into Newport
outcroppings, and protect coastal resources.
Harbor. However, within the current development
footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine
special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will
undertake focuses surveys during the appropriate
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -16
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
S3.9
S3.10
S3.11
S3.12
General Plan
negwre property owners to recora a waiver or Towre
shoreline protection for new development during the
economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition
of approval of a coastal development permit for new
development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to
wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other
hazards associated with development on a beach or
bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect
existing 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
Site and design new structures to avoid the need for
shoreline and bluff protective devices during the
economic life of the structure (75 years), unless an
environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff
and prevent bluff retreat is devised.
Kegwre that applications Tor new aevelopment with me
potential to be Impacted or Impact coastal erosion
include slope stability analyses and erosion rate
estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering
Require new development adjacent to the edge of
coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements,
irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant
vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff
recession.
Section 4.1— Land Use and
blooming season or eacn or [nose species to connrm that
they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species
exist on the subject property and it is determined that
project implementation would result in impacts an incident
take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game
Code will be obtained.
No rock outcroppings would be damaged or destroyed as
a result of project implementation.
Although not identified as an on Figure NR2 ESA
(Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan,
eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the
bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey was conducted
and determined that measures would be required during
the construction phase to protect the beds from damage
as a result of construction of the propose replacement
dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also
proposed to document any potential adverse effects and
identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted
Mitigation 4.5-1 requires the recordation of a waiver of
future shoreline protection for the project prior to the
issuance of a building permit includes such a waiver.
The project has been designed to avoid the need for
shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic
life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was
conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that the no
shoreline retreat was evident based on a review of aerial
photographs (1970s to 2004) and, further, the site has not
been subject flooding, erosion damage or wave runup
attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding,
erosion and wave runup will not adversely Impact the
proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., 75 years)
and the proposed project will not create or contribute
significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of
Refer to Response to Policy No. S 3.10.
The proposed project has been designed to Include
erosion control features to minimize the potential for
erosion. For example, all common areas will be
landscaped with similar plant material having similar water
requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff and
promote surface filtration and the City's "Water- Efficient
Landscaping" ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17)
will be implemented with common areas maintained by the
residents' HOA.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -17
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
General Plan
Section 4.1 — Land Use
A site - specific fault investigation was conducted for the
proposed project, which identified two faults on the subject
property, consisting of sheared bedrock zones. Based on
the findings of the 2003 fault investigation, both faults were
S4.7 Conduct further seismic studies for new development classified as "inactive." According to CDMG Special
in areas where potential active faults may occur. 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" because there has been no
displacement in at least 11.000 vears.
Noise Element
Require that all proposed projects are compatible with
N 1.1 the noise environment through use of Table N2, and
enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown
in Table N3.
CNEL noise contour (refer to Figure N4 in the Noise
Element). The ambient noise levels in the project environs
are less than 60 dBA CNEL. According to Table N2, the
proposed multi - family residential project is "clearly
compatible" with the ambient noise environment of the
multi - family residential neighborhood. Therefore, the
proposed project will comply with the Interior and exterior
noise levels prescribed for residential uses in the Noise
Require the employment of noise mitigation measures measures that reduce construction- related noise levels
for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise during each phase. In addition, several mitigation
impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs measures are also proposed to further reduce noise levels
N 1.8 when there is an Increase in the ambient CNEL to the maximum extent feasible during construction of the
produced by new development impacting noise proposed project. Although no significant long -term noise
sensitive uses. impacts will occur as a result of project implementation,
short-term, construction impacts will remain potentially
The dock facility includes eight slips for future residents as
N 2.5 Enforce compliance of all boating activities with the well as one guest slip. Boating activities will comply with
noise standards defined in the Municipal Code. the noise standards prescribed in the Newport Beach
Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure
that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to
N 4.1 excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, Refer to Response to Policy No. N 1.1.
such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on construction hours are limited to those prescribed in the
hours of maintenance or construction activity in or City's Noise Ordinance (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
N 4.6 adjacent to residential areas, Including noise that Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
results from in -home hobby or work- related activities. Saturday). Compliance with the Noise Control Ordinance
would be monitored by the City's Code Enforcement
Department.
Refer to Response to Policy No. 4.6. Compliance with the
N 5.1 Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Noise Control Ordinance would be monitored by the City's
Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan
Because the proposed project is located within the City's Coastal Zone, it is also subject to the policies
articulate din the Coastal Land Use Plan. Table 4.1 -2 provides a summary of the relevant CLUP policies
and the relationship of the project with each relevant policy.
Table 4.1 -2
CLUP Policy Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -18
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
2.1.2 -1
2.2.1 -1
2.2.1 -2
2.3.2 -1
2.7 -1
Land uses and new development In the coastal zone shall
be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all
applicable LCP policies and regulations.
Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development
within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the
coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and
resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Require new development be located in areas with
adequate public services or in areas that are capable of
having public services extended or expanded without
significant adverse effects on coastal resources.
Continue to use public beaches for public recreational
uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with
public access and enjoyment of coastal resources.
Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density,
floor area, and height limits for residential development to
protect the character of established neighborhoods and to
protect coastal access and coastal resources.
Section 4.1— Land Use and
i ne proposea conoominium oeveiopmenr on me sne is
consistent with the land use designation and density
allocated on the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan. In
addition, the project addresses the relevant policies
related to residential development and the protection of
coastal resources identified in the CLUP as discussed in
density prescribed in the CLUP and Land Use Element for
the site. Redevelopment of the site with 8 dwelling units
on the approximately 1.4 -acre site equates to
approximately 7 du /ac, which is within the density
allocation prescribed in the General Plan and zoning (20
du /ac). As described below in this table, the proposed
project also addresses the policies related to resource
The area within which the project is located is served by
the existing infrastructure, including circulation, sewer,
water, storm drainage, public services, and utilities. With
the exception of storm drainage facilities, all of the
infrastructure has adequate capacity to provide the
necessary service to the project. As indicated in Section
4.6, a catch basin located in Carnation Avenue is currently
deficient to accommodate existing storm flows (i.e.,
without the proposed project). The project applicant will
be responsible for upgrading this existing deficient facility
to accommodate existino and future storm flow.
A small beach area is located in the small cove below the
bluff. Although direct public access to the beach area is
not available either from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation
Avenue or other nearby public coastal access routes, this
area will remain accessible to the public via the harbor
and will not be adversely affected by project
The proposed residential structure complies with the
building and development standards prescribed in the
City's zoning ordinance. As previously Indicated, the
density and character of the proposed project are
consistent with the intensity and character of development
in the project area, which reflects a variety of styles that
contributes to the uniqueness of Corona del Mar.
Although the proposed multiple - family structure would be
larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it
would be smaller than the Channel Reef development
located to the south, as illustrated in several of the visual
simulations (refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the
proposed structure has a maximum building height of
approximately 32 feet, which is consistent with other
homes in the project area and is, on average,
approximately four feet under the maximum building
height permitted by the Municipal Code. However, the
project will require a Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) to
allow minor encroachment s into the front and side
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -19
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
setbacks. The majority of the encroachments are
subterranean.
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
Continue the administration of provisions of State law
Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or
2.7-2
relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of
conversion of low- and moderate- income units within the
low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal
Coastal Zone. With the exception of the three existing
zone.
occupied units, 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.
Hazards and Protective Devices
Several technical studies have been prepared to evaluate
the potential project - related impacts, including bluff
erosion, wave runup, etc. 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 4.9 of the EIR,
potential seismic constraints are addressed through the
implementation of MM 4.9 -1a, which ensures that project
implementation will adhere to the engineering
recommendations for site grading and foundation design
recommended in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical
report prepared for the proposed project. In addition, SC
Review all applications for new development to determine
4.9-2 ensures that the project will comply with all
2'8'1 -1
potential threats from coastal and other hazards.
applicable City and 2007 California Building Code
requirements.
With respect to potential threats from coastal hazards, a
Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was
conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no
shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial
photographs and, further, that the site has not been
subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack
in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion
and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed
improvements over their life time (i.e., 75 years) and the
proposed project will not create or contribute significantly
to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or
adjacent area.
Design and site new development to avoid hazardous
2.8.1 -2
areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.8.1 -1
and other hazards.
Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to
2.8.1 -3
avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.8.1 -1.
property from coastal and other hazards.
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
Require new development to assure stability and
alter the existing landform. As previously indicated,
structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute
although excavation proposed to accommodate the lower
significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction
levels of the structure will extend below elevation 50.7 feet
2'8'1 -4
of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the
NAVD88 PLOED, grading will occur behind the
construction of protective devices that would substantially
predominant line of development and not on the exposed
alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -20
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
2.8.3 -1
2.8.6 -8
Require all coastal development permit applications for
new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff
property subject to wave action to assess the potential for
flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches,
through wave uprush and impact reported prepared by a
licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal
processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a
wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach
combined with long -term (75 years) erosion. High tide
conditions, combined with long -term (75 years)
projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -
year event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El
Nino event.
Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum
required to protect existing development and prohibit their
use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or
for new development. "Existing development" for
purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle
structure (e.g., residential dwelling, required garage, or
second residential unit) and shall not include accessory or
ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis
courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping, etc.
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
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 NAVD88.
In addition, the project will not require the construction of
protective devices that would substantially alter natural
Iandforms along the bluffs. In fact, the project has been
designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff
protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal
Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by
GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat
was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and,
further, that the site has not been subject to flooding,
erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The
study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup
will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over
their lifetime (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will
not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic
located above areas subject to wave and storm surge and
the potential for seiches and /or tsunamis is considered
remote. The tsunami, like the design extreme wave /wake,
will not reach the proposed improvements. Due to the
infrequent nature and the relatively low 500 -year
recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with
the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is
reasonably safe from tsunami hazards.
A study was also 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 the dock to adverse impacts
associated with those phenomena. The study concluded
that 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. The City
maintains mooring cans within the Harbor that are
The project will not require the construction of protective
devices that would substantially alter natural Iandforms
along the bluffs. In fact, the project has been designed to
avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices
during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the
proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which
revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a
view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has
not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave
runup attack in the past. The study concluded that
flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely
impact the proposed improvements over their life time
(i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or
contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
t FOIN
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Policy
2.8.6 -10
2.8.7 -2
2.8.7 -3
2.9.3 -1
Site and design new structures to avoid the need for
shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic
life of the structure (75 years).
Require new development to provide adequate drainage
and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a
non - erosive manner in order to minimize hazards
resulting from increased runoff, erosion and other
hydrologic impacts to streams.
Require applications for new development, where
applicable (i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or
seismic hazards), to include a geologic/soils /geotechnical
study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the
proposed project site, any necessary mitigation
measures, and contains a statement that the project site
Is suitable for the proposed development and that the
development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require
such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified
Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and
Site and design new development to avoid use of parking
configurations or parking management programs that are
difficult to maintain and enforce.
Section 4.1— Land Use and
destruction of the site or adjacent area.
Several technical studies have been prepared to assess
the potential project to ensure that development of the site
is consistent with this policy. 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 & Associates Irvine 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
I ne project site is not located in the vicinity or a stream.
However, as required by the NPDES permit, a Storm
Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been
prepared, which establishes both structural and non-
structural BMPS in order to reduce sedimentation and
erosion during the construction phase. These measures
will be incorporated in the grading /erosion control plans
submitted to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, a
hydrological analysis was prepared by Hunsaker &
Associates Irvine that evaluated the post - development
hydrologic conditions. Based on that analysis, the
proposed project will result in minor increase in surface
water; however, the project has been designed to
accommodate 100 -year storm flows. Although a catch
basin located in Carnation Avenue is currently deficient,
the facility will be upgraded to ensure that it has adequate
capacity to accommodate both existing and future storm
flows.
As indicated above, a grading report (Grading Plan
Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August
2005) and a coastal hazard study (Coastal Hazard Study
prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated October 2006) were
prepared for the proposed project. These studies
thoroughly evaluates the proposed project and prescribes
appropriate measures to address soils and geotechnical
constraints on the site. As indicated in that study, the site
is suitable for the development proposed.
accommodate all resident and guest parking on -site. The
Aerie Corona Del Mar Condominium Project Traffic
Access Assessment prepared by Austin -Foust
Associates, Inc., determined that the proposed automobile
elevator system can adequately accommodate resident
parking in the lower levels of the proposed structure
without substantial back -up onto Carnation Avenue. In
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -22
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
addition, guest, bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking
are all provided below the grade of the Second Floor, and
will not utilize the proposed automobile elevator system
for in ress /e ress.
On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Parking
code requirements and is sufficient to serve the proposed
use. At least two parking spaces are provided and
designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest
spaces, one (1) service space, and two (2) golf cart
parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement,
basement, and First and Second Floods. The Second
Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of
Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1)
two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well
Continue to require new development to provide off -street
as bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking
2.9.3-2
parking sufficient to serve the approved use in order to
accommodations. The Second Floor parking is directly
minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking
accessible via a ramp from Carnation Avenue. Resident
available for coastal access.
parking is accessible via Carnation Avenue utilizing two
automobile elevators. All of the parking is hidden from
public view.
In addition, the project will create three additional on-
street public parking spaces because the length of the
curb cut on the project site has been substantially
reduced. The addition of these on- street parking spaces
is considered a beneficial impact because it will
accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the
peak summer /tourist season.
Require that all proposed development maintain and
2.9.3-3
enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.9.3 -3.
parking pursuant to the off -street parking regulations of
the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005.
The off - street parking allocated to the project within the
proposed structure has been designed to comply with the
Continue to require off - street parking in new development
q p g p
City's size, clearance, and access requirements. In
ad^'i! eaddition, the traffic study prepared by Austin-1
2.9.3 -5
to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to
Foust Associates, Inc., evaluated site access and
insure their use.
concluded that the number of parking spaces and the use
of the elevators to provide access would not adversely
affect circulation on the adjacent circulation network.
On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Parking
Prohibit new development that would result in restrictions
Code requirements and is sufficient to serve the proposed
on public parking that would impede or restrict public
use. In addition, the project will also crate three new on-
access to beaches, trails, or parklands, (including, but not
street public parking spaces because the length of the
2.9.3 -6
limited to, the posting of "no parking" signs, red curbing,
curb cut on the project site has been substantially
and physical barriers), except where such restrictions are
reduced. The addition of these on- street parking spaces
needed to protect public safety and where no other
is considered a beneficial impact because it will
feasible altemative exists to provide public safety.
accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the
peak summer /tourist season.
No new curb cuts are proposed. As indicated above,
adequate on -site parking for residents and guests Is
provided. Project implementation will not result in any
loss of existing on -street parking. In fact, because the
length of the curb cut on the project site has been
Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect
substantially reduced, the project will crate three
2.9.3 -10
on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create new
additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition
parking wherever feasible.
of these on -street parking spaces is considered to be a
beneficial impact because it will accommodate visitors to
the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist
season.
Shoreline and Bluff Top Access
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -23
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
3.1.1 -1
1911
3.1.1 -9
Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public
access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal
waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails.
Allow public access Improvements In environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) when sited, designed, and
maintained in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to
the ESHA.
Protect, expand, and enhance a system to public coastal
access that achieves the following: 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 transportation; minimizes alterations
to natural landforms; protects environmentally sensitive
habitat areas; and does not violate private property rights.
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Coastal access from the blurt to the beach below Is not
currently provided through the subject property. Although
an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the
occupants of the proposed dwelling units, 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 and submerged lands. Specifically, the steeply
sloping coastal bluff presents safety and maintenance and
liability 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.
Public access to the cove below from the harbor would
still remain and would not be adversely affected by the
proposed project, including the proposed dock facility.
The location of the dock would not preclude the existing
access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers,
or others.
Project implementation does not include any public
access improvements in ESHAs. Although not identified
as an environmentally sensitive habitat area by the City's
General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the
dove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass
survey was conducted and determined that measures
would be required during the construction phase to protect
the beds from damage as a result of construction of the
proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction
surveys are also proposed to document any potential
adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation
for impacted eelgrass.
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 3.1.1 -1 for a
discussion regarding public access. As discussed In that
section, the existing public access system will not be
adversely affected by the proposed project. Further,
public access is available at several locations to the north
and south. Also, consistent with Policy No. 3.1.1 -9,
existing coastal views from the project site would be
enhanced as a result of eliminating existing overhead
utility facilities on Carnation Avenue and expanding the
view through the site from Ocean Boulevard. The view
angle through the site from that location to the harbor and
ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as
a result of project implementation. In addition, a view of
the harbor and turning basin would also be created at the
northern property boundary where no view currently
exists.
Although project implementation would not facilitate
alternative modes of transportation, it would result in
fewer dwelling units than currently exist on the site (8
units proposed versus 15 that currently exist).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -24
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
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 if the site, the proposed project has
been designed with "curvilinear' features, which allow the
building to conform to the bluff when compared to the
existing rectilinear features of the existing residential
structure. In addition, the dock access /emergency exit
proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 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.
Finally, potentially adverse impacts to both terrestrial and
aquatic habitats have been minimized through site design.
Where potential impacts have been identified, they have
been mitigated to a less than significant level.
Refer to response to Policy 3.1.1 -1. Direct beach access
is not currently available through the site; however,
several public access routes exist in the vicinity of the
project site that would continue to serve residents and
3.1.1-11
Require new development to minimize impacts to public
beachgoers. Public access to the cove below from the
access to and along the shoreline.
harbor would still remain and would not be adversely
affected by the proposed project, Including the proposed
dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude
the existing access that is currently available to
swimmers, ka akers, or others.
Refer to response to Policy 3.1.1 -1. As indicated above,
Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways
the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents a potentially
3.1.1 -24
where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas
significant safety hazard as well as potential liability and
of limited public accessibility.
maintenance problems. Adequate public access currently
exists to the north and south of the subject property.
Coastal access from the bluff to the beach below is not
currently provided through the subject property and is not
proposed as part of the project. Although an existing
stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants
of the proposed dwelling units, this access is not suitable
to accommodate the public due to physical constraints.
Specifically, the site is constrained in terms of lateral and
vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the
site, and submerged lands. The steeply sloping coastal
bluff presents safety, maintenance, and liability concerns
for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the
project site has neither dedicated public access
easements nor physical public access to the bay.
Consistent with the policies above provide maximum
public access from the nearest public roadway to the
Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are the nearest
3.1.1 -26
shoreline and along the shoreline with new development
public roadways to the shoreline; however, as previously
except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety,
described, the site is characterized by topographic
military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal
constraints that pose safety concerns related to the
resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby.
steepness of the terrain, making the feasibility of providing
public access through the site difficult. Furthermore, as
suggested in this policy, 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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -25
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Anal sis
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.
Implement public access policies in a manner that takes
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
3.1.1 -27
what level of intensity; fragility of natural resource areas;
Refer to Response to CLUBP Policy 3.1.1 -26.
proximity to residential uses; public safety services,
including lifeguards, fire, and police access; support
facilities, Including parking and restrooms; management
and maintenance of the access; the need to balance
constitutional rights of individual property owners and the
public's constitutional rights of access.
The project site contains a coastal bluff. Although public
access to the bluff and the base of the bluff will not be
provided as part of the project (refer to Response to
CLUP Policy 3.1.1 -1), the project will enhance the public
Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public
view from the top of the bluff at Ocean Boulevard and
3'1'2 -1
access to and along coastal bluffs.
Carnation Avenue. The view angle through the project
site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be
increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of
project implementation. In addition, a view "window"
would also be created at the northern property limits
where one does not currently exist.
Site, design, and maintain public access Improvements in
Public access is not proposed through the subject
3'1'2 -2
a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs.
property. As such, CLUP Policy No. 3.1.2 -2 does not
apply to the proposed project.
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip
boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats
and a guest slip. The proposed boat dock will not extend
Continue to regulate the construction of bay and harbor
beyond the pierhead line. Consistent with City policies,
3.1.4 -1
structures within established Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead
construction of the proposed dock facility will not result in
Lines, and Project Lines.
potentially significant impacts to the existing pierhead line
within the harbor. Boats docked along the outboard slip
would be restricted to a maximum beam of 24 feet to
ensure that no encroachment into the harbor would occur
as a result of project implementation.
Implementation of the proposed project is dependent on
securing approval of all applicable permits from the City of
When applicable, continue to require evidence of approval
Newport Beach and responsible agencies having
3.1.4 -2
from the County of Orange, Coastal Commission, U.S.
jurisdiction over the project, including the California
Army Corps of Engineers, and other resource
Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit) and
management agencies, prior to issuing permits.
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will
provide evidence of all applicable approvals as requested
by the City..
The existing pile- supported pier walkway between the
existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad,
will be repaired /replaced as part of the project with a
structure in -like -kind. Neither the existing pier walkway
nor the proposed replacement structure will obstruct
Design and site piers, Including remodels of and additions
public lateral access since neither of the adjacent
3.1.4 -3
to existing piers so as not to obstruct public lateral access
waterfront properties are open to the public.
and to minimize impacts to coastal views and coastal
resources.
The proposed dock has been designed to minimize
impacts to coastal views. Although the dock would
obscure some of the existing rock outcroppings and
related features, Section 4.5 of the EIR concludes that the
docks would not result in a significant impact to the project
site's visual resources.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -26
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
3.1.4.4
3.2.1 -3
3.3.2 -6
4.1.1 -2
4.1.2 -2
CLUP
In residential areas, limit structures bayward of the
bulkhead line to piers and floats. Limit appurtenances
and storage areas to those related to vessel launching
and berthing.
Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to
accommodate the needs of new residents when allowing
new development.
Finally, impacts to natural resources in the cove and
harbor (e.g., eelgrass, etc.) as a result of the proposed
dock have also been avoided or, where adverse biological
resources impacts had the potential to occur, they have
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip
boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats
and a guest slip. Although the proposed boat dock will
extend to the pierhead line, the structures built bayward of
the bulkhead line will be limited to piers and floats.
The proposed project includes the redevelopment of a site
that currently supports 15 dwelling units in an area of the
city that is developed. The proposed project includes
private recreation, including a lounge, swimming pool, etc.
It also includes 8 docks and one guest slide tie dock to
serve the project's residents. Although the project does
not propose to provide additional public recreation and /or
park facilities, it will be subject to the City's park fee
Recreational Su000rt Facilities
Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand guest
docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately
owned marinas, restaurants and other appropriate
locations.
Ine proposed project includes the replacement or an
existing 4 -slip boat dock. In addition the dock will be
enlarged to accommodate up to 9 boats of various sizes,
including one guest boat. The boat dock will be
maintained by the homeowners' association and the slips
will be for the exclusive use of the homeowners and their
Resources
Require a site - specific survey and analysis prepared by a
qualified biologist as a fling requirement for coastal
development permit applications where development
would occur within or adjacent to areas identified as a
potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats or natural
communities listed In Section 4.1.1 that possess any of
the attributes fisted in Policy 4.1.1 -1. The ESAs depicted
on Map 4 -1 shall represent a preliminary mapping of
areas containing potential ESHA.
Provide special protection to marine resource areas and
species of special biological or economic significance.
None or the mbNAS Illustrated on Map 4 -1 in me coastal
Land Use Plan are located within the vicinity of the
proposed project and, therefore, would not be adversely
affected as a result of project implementation.
Nonetheless, the bluff contains native vegetation and
eelgrass beds are located in the cove below the bluff. As
required by CLUP Policy No. 4.1.1 -2, surveys have been
conducted for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. The
findings and recommendation of those studies are
presented in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources).
Although some potential impacts to the eelgrass beds
may occur as a result of the project, mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the project to ensure that
such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
The aquatic biology survey conducted for the proposed
project Indicated that several sensitive species inhabit the
harbor waters in the vicinity of the subject property.
However, with the exception of the eelgrass, no significant
impacts are anticipated any of the sensitive biological
species. As previously indicated, while potential
construction impacts to the eelgrass may occur; they will
be avoided or reduced to an Insignificant level through the
implementation of several mitigation measures identified
in Section 4.6 and Section 4.7.
The intertidal area below the bluff supports a colony of
sand dollars. Although not a protected species, it has
been described as a unique resource because it does not
exist in large numbers anywhere else in the bay. In order
to protect the sand dollar, construction activities
associated with the project, including the proposed dock
Draft Envimnmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -27
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistent Anal is
2a.
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 concrete dock structure. The area of
eelgrass habitat that Is actually affected by long -term
shading will be determined during post - construction
monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National
Require that uses of the marine environment be carded
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California
out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity
Eelgrass mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended).
4.1.2 -3
of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy
The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted
populations of all species of marine organisms adequate
shall be determined following the results of the two annual
for long -tern commercial, recreational, scientific, and
monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that
educational purposes.
address biological and water quality impacts have also
been prescribed.
Also, as indicated in Section 4.7, low to moderate
densities of sand dollars were found on the project site.
However, as prescribed in SC 4.7 -1, the restriction
prescribed by the CDFG that prohibits the taking of any
marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is
intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar.
In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to
these species, MM 4.7 -2a requires avoidance of the sand
flats within the cove by construction personnel and
equipment. As a result, no unavoidable significant
Impacts are anticipated with respect to biological
resources.
In addition to the eelgrass survey conducted for the
Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a
proposed project, Caulerpa taxifolia surveys were also
4.1.2 -5
condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay
undertaken as required by this policy. No invasive species
and immediately notify the SCCAT when found.
of algae, including Caulerpa taxifolia, were noted in the
general vicinity of the project site during either the 2005 or
2007 surveys. As a result, SCCAT was not notified.
This policy 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 biufftops to
minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species
Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the
and require their removal In new development. The
potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from
residential component of the project does not encroach
4.1.3 -1
sources including, but not limited to those identified in
within sensitive habitat areas or wetlands and the
Table 4.1.1.
landscaping plan indicates that the bluff will be
hydroseeded with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal
California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only
to establish the vegetation; all non - native plans will be
removed.
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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -28
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.1.4 -1
4.1.4 -3
Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important
ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat
within the Newport Bay ecosystem.
Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other
structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to
eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that
allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass.
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
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 concrete dock structure.
The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by
long -term 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
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 concrete dock structure.
The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by
long -term shading will be determined during post -
construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to
National Maine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Southern
California Eelgrass mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as
amended). Several mitigation measures have been
prescribed, including pre- and post - development
monitoring, to ensure that should potential impacts occur,
they would not be permanent. 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. Specifically, the developer would be required
to mitigate potential impacts pursuant to the requirements
of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
(NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). If any eelgrass
has been Impacted in excess of that determined in the
pre - construction survey, any additional Impacted eelgrass
potential impacts to the existing eelgrass beds in the
vicinity of the project. For instance, 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.
Implementation of the turbidity and sediment control
measures (e.g., silt curtains and sleeves around pilings)
will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile
emplacement activities.
However, it is possible that some potential temporary
impacts may occur as a result of construction activities.
Dock construction 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, BMPs, which eliminate any disposal of trash and
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -29
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.1.4 -4
4.1.4 -5
4.2.5 -1
4.3.1 -5
mitigation of impacts to eelgrass meadows in a
comprehensive harbor area management plan for
Where applicable, require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxilolia
surveys to be conducted as a condition of City approval
for projects in Newport Bay in accordance with operative
protocols of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols.
Avoid impacts to eelgmss (Zostem marina) to the greatest
extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1
mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the
restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where
feasible.
Water
Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes
with erosive soils to implement structural best
management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize
erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs
adopted for Newport Bay.
Section 4.1— Land Use 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
chains 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
eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -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.
Implementation of prescribed mitigation measures will
reduce the potential Impacts to a less than significant
level. In addition, pre- and post - development surveys will
be conducted to monitor the potential permanent impacts
associated with the facility. If such potential impacts
occur, they would be replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1 as
Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.1.4 -1 and
4.1.4 -3. Mitigation pursuant to the mitigation plan would
be subject to review and approval by the City of Newport
Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.1.4 -1 and
4.1.4 -3. As noted in those responses, the analysis
presented in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources)
summarizes the results of the eelgrass and Cau/erpa
taxifolia surveys conducted for the proposed project.
These studies were conducted in accordance with the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and
The eelgrass survey and impact assessment conducted
for the proposed project indicated that some potential
temporary impacts would occur; however, those impacts
would be mitigated through the implementation of
measures Intended to reduce siltation (e.g., silt curtains,
etc.) and other effects of construction activities (e.g.,
anchor dragging) that could impact the existing eelgrass
bed. As indicated in this policy, eelgrass losses would be
replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a
hydrological analysis were prepared by qualified
professionals in connection with the project. These
include best management practices (BMPs) and structural
methods to ensure that erosion and stormwater discharge
will not impact Newport Bay. These BMPs 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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -30
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Polic
Consisteripy Analysis
to the water quality impacts associated with urban
development.
The project applicant is required to prepare and
implement BMPs pursuant to the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SW PPP) that will be required prior to the
Issuance of the grading permit for the proposed project.
Require grading /erosion control plans to include loll
Implementation of these construction BMPs will ensure
4.3.1 -6
stabilization on graded or disturbed areas.
that grading /erosion control measures are implemented.
These measures are intended to minimize erosion and
stabilize the site during grading. As indicated above, the
applicant will also be required to Implement BMPs to
ensure that point source and non -point source pollutants
are minimized see Response to Policy 4.3.1-5).
See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6 for
a discussion of the project's efforts to minimize land use
disturbance activities.
Require measures to be taken during construction to limit
Also, the project has been designed to avoid impacts to
land use disturbance activities such as clearing and
native vegetation. Current project design features avoid
grading, limiting cut - and -fill to reduce erosion and
the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the
sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas,
north side of the project site that extends into Newport
4.3.1 -7
and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize
Harbor. However, within the current development
disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant
footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine
trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other
special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will
physical or biological features important for preventing
undertaken focused surveys during the appropriate
erosion or sedimentation.
blooming season of each of those species to confirm that
they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species
exist on the subject property and it is determined that
project implementation would result in impacts, an
incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and
Game Code will be obtained..
Require that development not result in the degradation of
4.3.2 -3
coastal waters (including the ocean, estuaries and lakes)
See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6.
caused by changes to the hydrologic landsca e.
The hydrology study prepared for the proposed project
includes a detention facility that will be constructed on -site
to treat and detain storm flows. Specifically, the 1.95 cis
To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be
emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated
retained on private property to prevent the transport of
by a proprietary StormFilter unit, and discharged into the
4.3.2 -8
bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine
existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly
coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue,
less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged.
and other pollutants into recreaflonal waters.
Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site
runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus
drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a
pollutant of concern.
Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development
encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of
the project site. When redeveloped, impermeable
surfaces will cover approximately 28 percent of the project
site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable.
Although the impervious areas will increase by
Require new development to minimize the creation of and
approximately 6 percent, the total discharge from the site
Increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly
In the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95
4.3.2 -11
connected impervious areas, to be maximum extent
cfs, or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when
practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of
compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The decrease in storm
pervious surfaces, where feasible.
flow is largely attributed to the addition of a swimming
pool, which would capture runoff during the storm event,
thereby reducing the total storm flows on the site under
existing conditions because a swimming pool does not
currently exist. The proposed stone 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 drains stem, together with the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -31
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Anal is
filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure
that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or
siltation on- or off -site.
As suggested above, the proposed project will result in a
The project will have a minimal impact on the absorption,
purification, and retention functions of natural drainage
systems that exist on the site. Although the project will
result in an approximately 6 percent increase in the total
Require development to protect the absorption,
impermeable surface area of the site, the developed
purification, and retention functions of natural drainage
project is estimated to generate only 1.95 cfs, or a 15
systems that exist on the site, to the maximum extent
percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the
practicable. Where feasible, design drainage and project
existing 2.31 cis. The decrease in storm flow is largely
4.3.2 -12
plans to complement and utilize existing drainage patterns
attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would
and systems, conveying drainage from the developed
capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing
area of the site in a non - erosive manner. Disturbed or
the total storm flows on the site under existing condition
degraded natural drainage systems should be restored,
because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The
where feasible.
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 element
within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped
site does not result in erosion or siltation on-or off -site.
The preliminary geotechnical analysis conducted for the
proposed project concluded that the site is suitable for
development with the Incorporation of measures outlined
in the report. The proposed project has been designed to
incorporate the recommendations of the report and will
not expose the structure and /or the future residents to
potential hazards.
In addition, the site has also been designed to minimize
impacts to natural and sensitive resources. For instance,
the project has been design with "curvilinear' features that
will allow the building to conform to the bluff when
Site development on the most suitable portion of the site
compared to the existing rectilinear features of the
4.3.2 -13
and design to ensure the protection and preservation of
existing residential structure. In addition, the dock
natural and sensitive site resources.
access /emergency exit proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88
also incorporates design features that conform to the
existing natural character of the bluff through the use of
landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks.
Finally, the proposed dock facility is located in an area
that avoids to the maximum extent possible, the eelgrass
beds located in the harbor. Although potential
construction impacts may occur, measures will be
required to ensure that such impacts are minimized and
reduced to an insignificant level (e.g., employ silt curtains,
etc.). In the event that direct impacts occur to eelgrass,
the applicant will be required to replace/restore it at a ratio
of 1.2:1 consistent with adopted policies.
As indicated in Section V (Inspection /Maintenance
Require structural BMPs to be inspected, cleaned, and
Responsibility for BMPs) of the WQMP prepared for the
repaired as necessary to ensure proper functioning for the
project, all of the structural BMPs will be inspected,
life of the development. Condition coastal development
cleaned and maintained in accordance with the BMP
4.3.2 -16
permits to require ongoing application and maintenance
Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix, which is
as is necessary for effective operation of all BMPs
consistent with this policy to ensure that their
(including site design, source control, and treatment
effectiveness and efficiency in water quality treatment is
control).
maximized.
Require beachfront and waterfront development to
4.3.2 -22
incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize
See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6.
polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters.
4.3.2 -23
Require new development applications to include a Water
See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6.
Quality Management Plan (WQMP . The WQMP's
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -32
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Polic y
Consistency Analysis
purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable
dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less the %"
of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration
of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post -
construction from the property.
Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant
To further reduce runoff, direct and encourage water
plant species determined to be consistent with the
conservation via the use of weather- and moisture -based
California coastal bluff environment. Invasive and non -
irrigation controls, fiered water consumption rates, and
invasive species shall removed. Irrigation of bluff
4'3'2 -24
native or drought - tolerant plantings in residential,
faces to establish et areas shall temporary
commercial, and municipal properties to the maximum
s.
establish the plants. Upon
and used only to establish
extent practicable.
establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation
h
system shall be removed. As a result, the need for
irrigation will be reduced /minimized.
Scenic and Visual Resources
As indicated in Section 4.5 of the EIR (Aesthetics),
although project implementation will result in the
introduction of a different structure on the site, views from
important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not
be significantly affected. In addition, views through the
site from the "Public View Point" at Ocean Boulevard and
Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be
enhanced. The view angle through the site from that
Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and
location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by
4.4.1-1
visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views
approximately 76 percent as a result of project
to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal
implementation. In addition, a view "window" will also be
bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
created at the northerly property limits where one does
not currently exist. Finally, the project will result in an
enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from
the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development
down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the
project's main structure will be constructed at elevation
52.83 feet NAVD88, resulting in approximately 10
additional vertical feet of bluff face as compared with
existing conditions.
The proposed project has been designed to minimize
impacts to public coastal views. As illustrated in the visual
simulations prepared for the proposed project (refer to
Section 4.5), the proposed residential structure has been
designed to blend into the bluff through its "curvilinear"
design, character, colors and building materials when
compared to the existing structure and nearby homes
4.4.1-2
Design and site new development, including landscaping,
located along the bluff. The aesthetic character of the
so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views.
residential neighborhood will be enhanced through the
elimination of existing overhead utilities (i.e.,
undergrounding) on Carnation Avenue. Further, no
significant encroachment into the ocean vista would occur
when viewed from Begonia. Finally, views to the ocean
from Ocean Boulevard would be enhanced as a result of
the design of the project, which expands the existing vista
bv aDDroximately 76 Dercant.
With the exception of the emergency egress, the
proposed project has been designed to limit the proposed
development to the Predominant Line of Existing
Development (PLOED), which was established by the
Design and site new development to minimize alterations
Newport Beach City Council at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD
4.4.1 -3
to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and
88. Although excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88
elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of
canyons.
the proposed structure, this excavation will occur behind
the bluff face and would not be visible from the harbor or
elsewhere within the viewshed.
In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -33
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
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.
Views through the site from the "Public View Point" at
Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the
Where appropriate, require new development to provide
project would be enhanced as a result of the project. The
view easements or corridors designed to protect public
c
view angle through the site from that location to the harbor
4.4.1 -4
coastal views or t restore public coastal views in
and ocean would be increased by approximately 76
developed areas.
percent. Implementation of MM 4.5 -2 (refer to Section
4.5.4) requires a view easement (applicable only to the
project site) to ensure that this view enhancement Is
achieved and preserved In the future.
The existing apartment building was constructed In 1949
and the adjacent home on the site was built In 1955.
These structures lack aesthetic character, especially with
open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground
level of the structure facing Carnation Avenue. A portion
of the existing structures extend down to the bluff face, to
elevation 42.3 feet NAVD88.
Project implementation will result in the replacement of
4.4.1 -5
Where feasible, require new development to restore and
the existing buildings with a high quality structure of
enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas.
modern design. In addition, overhead utilities that exist
within the parkway on the south side of Carnation Avenue
would be undergrounded, resulting in the elimination of
the utility features that extent vertically and horizontally
within the vlewshed. The elimination of these features
would enhance views and the aesthetic character within
the neighborhood. Finally, the project would be slightly
higher on the bluff then the existing structure. As a result,
the bluff face below the proposed structure would be
landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials.
4.4.1-6
Protect public coastal views from the following roadway
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -4.
segments: Ocean Boulevard
At the present time, a 25 degree view currently exists
between the existing apartment building on the site and
Design and site new development, including landscaping,
the neighbor's garage and fence to the south. Project
blic coastal
blic co
on the edges of public view corridors, including
implementation will result In an expansion /enhancement
those down public to frame and accent public
of that existing view, which would increase to 44 degrees
coastal views.
with the proposed project. Implementation of MM 4.5 -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.
With only minor exception (e.g., excavation required to
accommodate the subterranean levels, side yard setback)
Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of
the project complies with all of the development standards
4.4.2 -2
structures consistent with the unique character and visual
prescribed by the existing zoning and is, therefore,
scale of Newport Beach.
consistent with building height limits and other City
building envelope restrictions. The below grade
encroachments will not impact public views and the above
grade encroachment is located within a side yard setback
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -34
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistent Anal is
between the proposed project and the home abutting the
site to the north (215 Carnation Ave.) where no public
view currently exists. Furthermore, although the proposed
multiple - family structure would be larger than the existing
structure(s) occupying the site, it would be smaller than
the Channel Reef development located to the south, as
illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to
Section 4.5).
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -2 for a
discussion of Zoning Code compliance. Also, note that
Implement the regulation of the building envelope to
views through the site from the "Public View Point" at
preserve public views through the height, setback, floor
Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the
4.4.2 -3
area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the
Project would be enhanced as a result of the project. The
Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the
view angle through the site from that location to the harbor
building profile and maximize public view opportunities.
and ocean would be increased by approximately 76
percent. In addition, views to the harbor and turning basin
would also be created at the northern property boundary
where no view currently exists.
On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new
No new accessory structures are proposed. All project
accessory structures as decks, patios, and walkways that
structures will be supported by structural foundations.
do not require structural foundations to be sited in
The policy requires that accessory structures be removed
4.4.3.4
accordance with the predominant line of existing
or relocated landward when threatened by erosion,
development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet
instability or other hazards. SC 4.9-4 mandates that the
from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be
existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and
removed or relocated landward when threatened by
walkway) be removed if such circumstances arise in the
erosion, Instability or other hazards.
future.
The City Council has established a predominant line of
existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at
elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the
Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff
bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher
not subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance
than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except
with the predominant line of existing development in the
for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As
subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal
a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face
4.4.3 -5
structure and major accessory structures such as
of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAV088, or
guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased
approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential
where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the
structures (other than the proposed emergency exit). The
development.
basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and
will not be visible from either the street or the bay. As
such, those subterranean spaces are not subject to the
PLOED. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepots are
proposed at each above grade level.
On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new
accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways
that do not require structural foundations, to be set back
Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.4.3 -4 and
Refers.
4.4.3 -6
from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant
line of existing accessory development. Regluire
accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward
when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards.
Protective devices are not required for the proposed
project. As Indicated in the Coastal Hazard Study
Require all new development located on a bluff top to be
prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., flooding, erosion and wave
setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure
runup will not adversely impact the proposed
stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion,
improvements over their lifetime c years) and the
and to avoid the need for protective devices during the
proposed project will not create r contribute significantly
economic life of the structure (75 years). Such setbacks
d
to erosion, geologic Instability, or destruction of the site or
4.4.3 -7
must take into consideration expected long -term bluff
adjacent area.
retreat over the next 75 years, as well as slope stability.
The project will be set back a sufficient distance from the
To assure stability, the development must maintain a
bluff edge to ensure stability. As discussed above, the
minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against landsliding for the
City Council has established a predominant life of existing
life of the structure.
development for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88.
This is the extent to which new structures may be built
toward the bay, and down he bluff. At elevation 52.83 feet
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -35
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
NAVD88, the project will be more than two feet higher
than the PLOED, except for the dock access /emergency
exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As a point of
reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the
existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAVD88, or
approximately eight feet lower than the proposed
residential structures (other than the proposed dock
access/emergency exit). Further, the site is not subject to
potential landslidin .
The City Council has established a predominant line of
Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private
existing bluff face development for the site at elevation
development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean
50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the bluff face is
Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona
proposed to be more than two feet higher than the
del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant
PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a
line of existing development or public improvements
dock access/emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet
providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or
NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down
4'4'3 -8
providing for public safety. Permit such improvements
the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3
only when no feasible alternative exists and whe n
feet NAVD88, or approximately eight feet lower than the
designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the
proposed residential structures (other than the proposed
bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff
dock access/emergency exit). The basement and sub -
face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding
basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible
area to the maximum extent feasible.
from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks,
spas, and firepots are proposed at each above -grade
level.
As previously indicated, with only minor exception (i.e.,
emergency access at 40.5 feet NAVD88, the proposed
project complies with the PLOED setback prescribed by
the Newport Beach City Council. A series of visual
simulations was create to evaluate the potential visual
Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces
Impacts of the proposed project. Although the simulations
along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific
(refer to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) Illustrate that the new
Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to
development would result in some changes in the visual
be sited in accordance with the predominant line of
character of the site, no significant visual impacts are
4.4.3 -9
existing development in order to protect public coastal
anticipated, either from the harbor or other public
views. Establish a predominant line of development for
vantages within the vicinity of the project. The simulations
both principle structures and accessory improvements.
revealed that some views from Carnation Avenue and
The setback shall be increased where necessary to
Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced (i.e., elimination of
ensure safety and stability of the development.
overhead utilities on Carnation Avenue) or expanded (i.e.,
a wider view angle from the sidewalk along Ocean
Boulevard). From other more distant vantages (e.g.,
Begonia Park), the proposed structure will not significantly
change the existing view. As a result, no significant visual
impacts are anticipated
As indicated in the GeoSoils, Inc., Coastal Hazard Study,
Require applications for new development to include
flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely
4.4.3 -11
slope stability analyses and erosion rate esflmates
impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e.,
provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or
75 years) and the proposed project will not create or
Geotechnical Engineer.
contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or
destruction of the site or adjacent area
The project site encompasses a south - facing bluff. A
small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized
by rock outcroppings. Although development will extend
down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet
above the 50.7 feet NAVD88 PLOED identified by the City
Council), the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below
Employ site design and construction techniques to
that elevation with the exception of the dock
4.4.3 -12
minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum
accesslemergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet
extent feasible.
NAVD88 elevation. However, the access would be
recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the
natural appearance of the bluff.
The proposed project has been designed to complement
the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilineal' features
reflected in the design of the proposed residential
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -36
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
structure will allow the building to conform to the character
of the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear
features of the existing residential structure. In addition,
the proposed colors are consistent with the natural
environment, and the project's mass has been broken by
the physical separation between the two main structural
elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed
structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native
plant materials.
The project implements Policy 4.4.3 -13 through
hydroseeding the bluff with a drought- tolerant mix of
plants that are native to coastal California. Temporary
Irrigation will be used only to establish the vegetation.
Implementation of MM 4.7-4 will ensure that the planting
and irrigation be accomplished within this limitation. In
addition, all common areas will be landscaped with similar
plant material having similar water requirements to reduce
excess Irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration.
Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal
The proposed storm drainage system will more efficiently
4.4.3 -13
bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation
capture site runoff, reduce the amount of sheet flow
systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into
across the bluff face, and discharge to Newport Bay with
the design to minimize coastal bluff recession.
less intensity than under current conditions. Specifically,
the 1.95 cis emanating from the site will be detained in a
vault, treated by a proprietary Storm Filter unit, and
discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50
cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being
discharged.
Implementation of these measures will help reduce the
potential for coastal bluff recession due to effects of site
runoff.
The project has been designed to avoid impacts to native
vegetation. Current project design features avoid the
coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the
north side of the project site that extends into Newport
Harbor. However, within the current development
footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for nine
special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will
undertaken focused surveys during the appOropriate
blooming season of each of those species to confirm that
they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species
exist on the subject property and it Is determined that
project implementation would result in impacts, an
incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and
Design and site new development to minimize the
Game Code will be obtained.
4.4.3 -15
removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings,
and protect coastal resources.
No rock outcroppings would be damaged or destroyed as
a result of project implementation.
Although not identified as an ESA on Figure NR2
(Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan,
eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the
bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgmss survey was
conducted and determined that measures would be
required during the construction phase to protect the beds
from damage as a result of construction of the proposed
replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys
are also proposed to document any potential adverse
effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for
impacted eel grass.
Paleontological and Cultural Resources
4.5.1 -1 Require new development to protect and preserve I As indicated in Section 4.10, project implementation will
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -37
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistency Analysis
paleontological and archaeological resources from
not result in potential impacts to paleontological and
destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such
archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must
resources. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible,
comply with State law in the event human remains are
require an in situ or site - capping preservation plan or a
encountered. In addition, because the Monterey
recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development.
Formation Is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been
identified to address potential impacts to such fossils.
Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by
the project applicant to develop a Paleontological
Resource Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the
guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 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 costs to
accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the
project applicant.
Require a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor
all grading and /or excavation where there is a potential to
affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading
operations or excavations uncover
paleontological /archaeological resources, require the
paleontologistlarchaeologist monitor to suspend all
development activity to avoid destruction of resources
until a determination can be made as to the significance
4.5.1 -2
of the paleontological /archaeological resources. If
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1.
resources are detem fined to be significant, require
submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures
considered may range from in -situ preservation to recover
and /or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good
faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through
methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in
situ preservation /capping, and placing cultural resources
areas in open space.
As Indicated in Section 4.10, because implementation of
the proposed project requires the approval of an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport
Beach General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB
Notify cultural organizations, including Native American
18, which requires consultation with Native American
organizations, of proposed developments that have the
representatives before adopting or amending a general
4.5.1 -3
potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow
plan. The City has complied with the requirement of SB
qualified representatives of such groups to monitor
18 by submitting a request to the Native American
grading and /or excavation of development sites.
Heritage Commission . In addition, the City also
Native
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 representatives requesting consultation within
the 90-day statutory period.
Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not
feasible, require new development to donate scientifically
4'5'1 -4
valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No 4.5.1 -1.
responsible public or private institution with a suitable
repository, located within Orange County, whenever
possible.
Where there is a potential to affect cultural or
paleontological resources, require the submittal of an
4.5.1 -5
archaeological /cultural resources monitoring plan that
Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 4.5.1 -1.
Identifies monitoring methods and describes the
procedures for selecting archaeological and Native
American monitors and procedures that will be followed if
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -38
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning
No.
4.6 -6
4.6-6
4.6-8
4.6 -9
CLUP Policy
additional or unexpected archaeological /cultural
resources are encountered during development of the
site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to,
provisions for cessation of all grading and construction
activities in the area of the discovery that has any
potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits
in the area of the discovery and all construction that may
foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance
testing. additional investigation and mitigation.
Environmental
Where development is proposed within or adjacent to
ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require City
staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to
consider the individual and cumulative impacts of the
development, define the least environmentally damaging
alternative, and recommend modifications or mitigation
measures to avoid or minimize impacts. The City may
impose a fee on applicants to recover the cost of review
of a proposed project when required by this policy.
Where development is proposed within or adjacent to
ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require the
city staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to
include the following in any recommendations of approval:
an identification of the preferred project alternative,
required modifications, or mitigation measures necessary
to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan.
The decision making body (Planning Director, Planning
Commission, or City Council) shall make findings relative
to the project's conformance to the recommendations of
the City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s).
Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national Marine
Fisheries Service, and other resource management
agencies, as applicable, in the review of development
applications in order to ensure that impacts to ESHA and
marine resources, including rare, threatened, or
endangered species, are avoided or minimized such that
ESHA is not significantly degraded, habitat values are not
significantly disrupted, and the biological productivity and
Require applications for new development, where
applicable, to include a geologictsoils /geotechnical study
that Identifies any geologic hazards affecting the project
site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains
statements that the project site is suitable for the
proposed project has been thoroughly evaluated in the
initial study and Draft EIR. Several technical analyses
have been prepared to determine the nature and extent of
both individual and cumulative impacts anticipated as a
result of project implementation. As concluded in the
analysis presented in the Draft EIR, while potentially
significant project - related impacts have been identified, no
significant cumulative impacts will occur as a result of
project implementation. As required by CEQA, mitigation
measures have been prescribed for each potentially
significant impact, which will be implemented to ensure
that most of the impacts are reduced to a less than
significant level. However, temporary construction noise
will remain a significant an unavoidable adverse impact.
Although not located within an established ESHA, the site
is located within the Coastal Zone of the City and supports
native vegetation and important coastal resources. As
such, the site has been designed to minimize potential
impacts to sensitive habitat, including coastal resources.
Specifically, potential impacts to eelgrass may occur
during construction of the proposed dock facility and
subsequent to the construction of that feature; however,
several mitigation measures have been prescribed to
ensure that such impacts are reduced to an acceptable
level (i.e., less than significant). If permanent Impacts
occur based on monitoring, replace of that habitat would
be required at a ratio of 1.2:1, consistent with adopted
plans and programs.
The recommendation report issued by City staff will
include an identification of the preferred project
alternative, required modifications, or mitigation measures
necessary to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land
Use Plan. In addition, the decision - making body shall
make findings relative to the project's conformance to City
staffs recommendations.
The proposed project will be subject to review and
comment by the resources agencies listed in CLUP Policy
No. 4.6-8 through the environmental review (i.e., CEQA)
process, including the California Department of Fish and
Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries, and California Coastal Commission.
Both a grading report (Grading Plan Review Report
prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005) and a
coastal hazard study (Coastal Hazard Study prepared by
GeoSoils, Inc, dated October 2006) were prepared for the
proposed project. These studies thoroughly evaluated the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -39
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
Policy
No.
CLUP Policy
Consistengy Analysis
safe from geologic hazard for its economic life. For
address soils and geotechnical constraints on the site. As
development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing
indicated in that study, the site is suitable for the
Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall Include slope
development proposed and will be safe from geologic
stability analyses and estimates of the long -term average
hazard.
bluff retreat rate over the expected life of the
development. Reports are to be signed by an
Excavation proposed for the project will result in the
appropriately licensed professional and subject to review
removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the
and approval by qualified city staff member(s) and /or
terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylghting on
contracted employee(s).
the bluff face. With the removal of these materials, the
bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. In
addition, the incorporation of site drainage measures will
also redirect existing site surface drainage away from the
bluff, thereby further reducing potential bluff erosion. The
GeoSoils, Inc., Coastal Hazard Study concluded that the
proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute
significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or the
destruction of the site or adjacent area.
Newport Beach Zoning
As indicated in Section 4.1.1, the majority of the subject property is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family
Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178
square feet of land. The maximum density that could be achieved on the subject property is based on the
MFR zoning parameters identified below.
Total Site Area 61,282 square feet
Existing Building Pad 13,481 square feet
Slope area less than 50% 7,462 square feet
Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet
Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet
The maximum density that would be permitted on the subject property is determined by subtracting the
area of the site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the site located below
mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total project site area (61,284 square feet). This
calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land
area per dwelling unit, a maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted on the subject property. The
project applicant is proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision
of the MFR zoning classification.
A small portion of the site (584 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has
proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the site to MFR, which would be consistent
with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM.
Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and the
existing conflict with the MFR zoning that applies to the majority of the property, which permits higher
density development. Development of the site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations
and development standards prescribed for the MFR zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with
the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
SCAG Policies and Proqrams
Table 4.1 -3 provides a discussion of the project's consistency with the applicable goals, objectives,
policies and programs reflected in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. As indicated in that
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1-40
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the SCAG projections, plans and policies and no
significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation.
Table 4.1 -3
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Consistency Analysis
Policy
No. RCPG Polic
Consistency Analysis
Regional Transport tion Plan
Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's
Project implementation will not result in the generation of
4.01
adopted Regional Performance indicators (i.e., mobility,
significant new traffic that would adversely affect regional
accessibility, environment, reliability, safety, livable
transportation facilities.
communities, equity, and cost- effectiveness).
4.02
Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental
As indicated above, no significant long -term traffic
impacts to an acceptable level.
impacts will result from project implementation
A Construction Management Plan has been prepared for
the proposed project, which addresses all aspects of the
construction phase (e.g., phasing schedule, construction
equipment, and the construction process). In addition,
the CMP also addresses packing management (e.g., off-
site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control
4.04
Transportation control measures shall be a priority.
(e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and
security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, etc.), air
quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g.,
dust control, noise control, vibration monitoring); and
environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and
sediment control and beach protection, water quality
control and environmental protection measures).
Improvement of Regional Standard of Living
The proposed project is located In an area of the City
that is served by a full complement of public services
and utilities. With the upsizing of the existing deficient
Encourage patterns of urban development and land use,
catch basin, adequate infrastructure and public services
3.05
which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and
are available to serve the project. Therefore, project
make better use of existing facilities.
implementation would result in an improvement in
infrastructure service to the area. All of the remaining
infrastructure facilities (e.g., sewer, water, police and fire
protection, etc.) have adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed project .
Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of
As indicated in Response to Policy 3.05 above,
infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to
adequate infrastructure and public services exist in the
3.09
seek new sources of funding for development and the
project area to serve the proposed project. The
provision of services.
applicant will be responsible for upgrading an existing
deficient catch basin.
Improvement of Regional Quality of Life
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject
property, which will result in a reduction in the number of
Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions'
dwelling units that exist on the site and, as a result, will
programs aimed at designing land uses which
reduce the total number of vehicle trips (and miles
3.12
encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need
traveled) associated with site development. Project
for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips
implementation will not result in the construction of new
and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunifies for
or expanded roadways. Public transit opportunities
residents to walk and bike.
currently exist within the Corona del Mar community and
in the City of Newport Beach that would serve the
proposed residential project.
As previously indicated in Response to Policy 3.12,
Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the
project implementation includes the reuse of an existing
3.13
use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit
developed site, which will not require the expansion of
through infll and redevelopment,
existing transit services, which currently exist in the
community. Existing transit facilities are adequate to
serve the ro osed residential use.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1-41
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1-42
The project has been carefully designed to avoid and /or
mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts.
The project's significant and unavoidable temporary
3.18
Encourage planned development in locations least likely
construction noise impact is a function of its location on a
to cause adverse environmental impacts.
coastal bluff in a developed residential neighborhood.
As discussed In Chapter 10.0 (Alternatives) of the EIR,
projects of varying designs and densities generate
similar construction noise impacts.
The proposed project will not result in potentially
significant Impacts to wetlands, groundwater recharge
areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing
unique and /or endangered plants and animals.
Although not identified as an ESA on Figure NR2
(Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan,
eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the
bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey as
conducted and determined that measures would be
Support the protection of vital resources such as
required during the construction phase to protect the
wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands,
beds from damage as a result of construction of the
3.20
production lands, and land containing unique and
proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction
endangered plants and animals,
surveys are also proposed to document any potential
adverse effects and identify the need to provide
mitigation for impacted eelgrass.
In addition, the intertidal area below the bluff supports a
colony of sand dollars. Although not a protected
species, it has been described as a unique resource
because it does not exist in large numbers anywhere
else in the bay. Construction activities associated with
the project, Including the proposed dock facility must
avoid the intertidal area to ensure that no significant
impacts occur to the sand dollar colony.
As indicated in Section 4.10, project implementation will
not result in potential impacts to paleontological and
archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must
comply with State law in the event human remains are
encountered. In addition, because the Monterey
Formation is known to contain fossils, mitigation has
been identified to address potential impacts to such
fossils. Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be
retained by the project applicant to develop a
Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program
Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the
consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate
3.21
preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded
Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered
cultural resources and archaeological sites.
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 costs to accession any
collections shall be the responsibility of the project
applicant.
The project site encompasses a south- facing bluff. A
small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized
by rock outcroppings. Although development will extend
Discourage development, or encourage the use of
down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet
3.22
special design requirements, In areas will steep slopes,
above the 50.7 feet NAVD 88 PLOED identified by the
high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.
City Council), the integrity of the bluff will be maintained
below that elevation with the exception of the dock
access /emergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5
feet NAVD88 elevation. However, the access would be
recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1-42
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning
natural appearance of the bluff.
The proposed project has been designed to
complement the site's natural bluff features. The
"curvilinear' features reflected in the design of the
proposed residential structure will allow the building to
conform to the character of the bluff when compared to
the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential
structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent
with the natural environment, and the project's mass has
been broken by the physical separation between the two
main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below
the proposed structure would be landscaped and
enhanced with native plant materials.
In addition, development of the site has been designed
to minimize potential seismic Impacts. The geotechnical
report prepared for the project concluded that the project
will not adversely affect the integrity of the bluff.
Although not a mitigation measure, the project includes a
Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in
detailed Construction Management Plan, which
certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of
addresses project phasing and construction traffic in
3.23
biological and ecological resources, measures that
order to minimize adverse noise and air quality impacts.
would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize
Where potential impacts are identified (e.g., biological
earthquake damage, and to develop emergency
resources, drainage and hydrology, etc.) mitigation
response and recovery plans.
measures have been prescribed that are intended to
reduce or eliminate the Impact.
Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the
The proposed project will provide housing in the Corona
3.24
implementation of programs that Increase the supply and
del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. The project
quality of housing and provide affordable housing as
is not subject to the provision of affordable housing
evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
based on the City's RHNA requirements.
Provision of Social, Political, and Cultural Equity
Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in
Adequate public services exist within the City to
their efforts to develop sustainable communities and
accommodate the proposed residential redevelopment
provide, equally to all members of society, accessible
project. The site will be subject to school development
3'27
and effective services such as: public education,
fees to address public education and the City's Park
housing, health care, social services, recreational
Dedication Fee Ordinance to address public recreation
facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.
facilities. In addition, adequate law enforcement and fire
protection services can be provided to the development.
Air Quality Chapter Core Actions
The Draft EIR includes a thorough analysis of project -
related air quality, noise, traffic, and land use impacts.
Through the environmental document review process,
The results of these environmental analysis concludes
ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional,
that although some potential impacts may occur,
air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air
mitigation measures have been prescribed and will be
5.11
quality, land use, transportation and economic
implemented in order to reduce most of the impacts to a
relationships to ensure consistency and minimize
less than significant level as required by CEQA. The
conflicts.
proposed project is consistent with the long -range land
use plans and programs as well as adopted policies in
the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (refer to
Section 4.1 Land Use).
Open Space Ancilla ry Goals
The project applicant has allocated areas within the
structure and on the property that are dedicated to
Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor
recreational use by the residents of the proposed project.
9.01
recreation needs of the present and future residents in
In addition, the project will be subject to the City's Park
the region and to promote tourism in the region.
Dedication Fee Ordinance, which is utilized by the City to
provide public recreation, including that within the
coastal zone that is utilized by visitors to the City.
Increase the accessibility to open space lands for
The project will be subject to the City's Park Dedication
9'02
outdoor recreation.
Fee Ordinance, which is utilized by the City to provide
public recreation, including that within the coastal zone
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1-43
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1— Land Use and
Existing Land Use
Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
The subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of
Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and
other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with
state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property
revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the
coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the
coastal California gnatcatcher is anticipated as a result of project implementation. As a result, project
implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation
measures are required.
Physically divide an established community.
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 Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As
indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and
multiple - family residential development. Although development of the site as proposed would change the
character of the site by introducing a modern multiple - family structure within the neighborhood,
development of the subject property would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no
design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or
significant change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility.
Redevelopment of the site, which currently supports 14 multiple - family dwelling units and a single - family
residence, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed 8 -unit
condominium project is consistent with the density of development permitted by the land use designation
and zoning adopted for the site. The density of the proposed project is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4
du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units and the 20 du /ac permitted by the
General Plan Land Use Element and zoning. Further, the proposed structure complies with the
development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning
district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -44
that is utilized by visitors to the City.
The project applicant will be required to pay the park fee
9.03
Promote self- sustaining regional recreation resources
imposed by the City of Newport Beach, which will be
and facilities.
used to provide recreational facilities to residents and
visitors within the City, including within the coastal zone.
Both terrestrial and marine biological surveys were
conducted to evaluate the potential adverse effects of
the proposed project on important habitat and /or
resources. The eelgrass survey identifies several
Develop well- managed viable ecosystems or known
measures, including pre- and post - development
9.08
habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species,
monitoring to document the project - related impacts and,
including wetlands.
if determined necessary, require appropriate measures
to mitigate potential Impacts to that resource. Other
measures are also proposed to ensure that potential
impacts to sensitive biological resources are reduced to
a less than significant level (refer to Section 4.7.4).
Existing Land Use
Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
The subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of
Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and
other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with
state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property
revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the
coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the
coastal California gnatcatcher is anticipated as a result of project implementation. As a result, project
implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation
measures are required.
Physically divide an established community.
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 Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As
indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and
multiple - family residential development. Although development of the site as proposed would change the
character of the site by introducing a modern multiple - family structure within the neighborhood,
development of the subject property would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no
design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or
significant change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility.
Redevelopment of the site, which currently supports 14 multiple - family dwelling units and a single - family
residence, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed 8 -unit
condominium project is consistent with the density of development permitted by the land use designation
and zoning adopted for the site. The density of the proposed project is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4
du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units and the 20 du /ac permitted by the
General Plan Land Use Element and zoning. Further, the proposed structure complies with the
development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning
district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1 -44
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.1 — Land Use and
Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan.
The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport, which
is located approximately five miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No
portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject
property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip.
Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft
operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no
significant land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures
are required.
Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan
The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However,
because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed,
natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses
approximately 1.4 acres that are currently developed with single- and multiple - family residential dwelling
units. The site has been altered in order to accommodate the existing development. Neither the site nor
the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation
Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and /or
resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.
4.1.5 Mitigation Measures
As indicated in the preceding analysis, the proposed project, which includes the construction of an eight -unit
condominium development and the replacement of the existing private marina with an eight -slip dock (and
one guest side tie) that is consistent with the Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the Newport
Beach General Plan and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General
Plan Update. The proposed project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. As a result, no
significant long -term land use impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Short-term
land use compatibility impacts associated with construction air quality will be reduced to a less than
significant level through the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.3 (Air Quality).
4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation
As indicated above, the project is consistent with the long -range plans and programs adopted by the City.
Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the project (i.e., comply with the zoning district
regulations, California Building Code and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant
impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of
project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.1-45
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation
4.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., (AFA) evaluated the project's short-term construction traffic impacts and the
operational traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The analysis presented below provides a
summary of the findings and recommendations of the "Aerie Corona Del Mar Condominium Project Traffic
Access Assessment (March 4, 2009) prepared by AFA. This Assessment is included as Appendix C.
4.2.1 Existing Conditions
The subject property is located in the residential oriented Corona del Mar neighborhood and is bounded by
Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Principal access into the neighborhood is from West Coast
Highway via Marguerite Avenue. Except for West Coast Highway, none of these streets are on the City's
Master Plan of Streets and Highways and they are considered local streets. Traffic counts on Carnation
Avenue were conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 5:45 p.m. on September 18, 2008 and included in the Traffic
Access Assessment prepared by AFA. This period represents a typical operating condition (e.g., schools are
in session). At the present time, Carnation Avenue carries approximately 24 vehicles per hour (vph) and 22
vph on average during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The midday peak hour, beginning at
12:00 p.m. averages 29 vph. The local streets serve the residential neighborhoods within Corona del Mar.
The subject property is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment complex and one single - family
residential dwelling unit. Only three of the 15 dwelling units are occupied, generating an estimated 23 trips
per day. If all of the dwelling units were occupied, it is estimated that they would generate up to 104 trips per
day, including eight trips during the a.m. peak hour and 10 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
4.2.2 Significance Criteria
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of
the following occurs as a result of project implementation.
The project will generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City of Newport Beach
that results in an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) change of 0.01 or more and the
resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater.
The project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion Management Program
(intersection resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) F, or if a Congestion Management
Program intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU
change beyond 0.10.
The project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity.
4.2.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.2 -1 On -site parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Zoning Code requirements.
SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.2.4 Potential Impacts
4.2.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction Traffic
Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation
During the construction phases, there will be periods of time when a substantial volume of heavy truck
traffic hauling export soils and materials and equipment would occur. Table 4.2 -1 reflects the potential
peak volumes of truck trips at different construction phases required by the proposed project.
Table 4.2 -1
Potential Construction - Related Project Trip Generation
Phase
Task
Estimated Number of Trips
Demolition activities would occur for
approximately 6 days. It is anticipated an
Demolition
average of 10 trucks trips/ day would
occur daily during the 6 days of
demolition.
117 cement trucks total. Caisson
38 Caissons Installation for Row A
installation would occur for approximately
13 days with an average of 9 cement
trucks per day.
Phase I
Excavation - Sectment No. 1
1,084 truck trips total. Excavation to this
depth would take approximately 41 days
with an average of 27 truck trips/ day.
Excavation to an Elevation of 50
feet and removal of 13,000 cubic
yards of dirt.
72 cement trucks total. Caisson
23 Caissons Installation for Row B
installation would occur for approximately
6 days with an average of 12 cement
trucks per day.
Excavation - Segment No. 2
Excavation to an Elevation of 40
feet and removal of 7,000 cubic ards of dirt.
584 truck trips total. Excavation to this
depth would take approximately 21 days
with an average of 28 truck trips/ day.
Excavation - Segment No. 3
Excavation to an Elevation of 28
feet and removal of 5,240 cubic ards of dirt
437 truck trips total. Excavation to this
depth would take approximately 15 days
with an average of 29 truck trips/ day.
622 Cement trucks total. There will be
approximately 12 concrete pour events
during Phase II and each would take 30
to 40 days. Concrete formwork would
Phase 2
Building Construction
consist of 90% of the duration and 3 to 5
days for concrete pouring. There would
be about 20 to 25 cement trucks trip per
day during the concrete pouring and
there will be an average of 1 month
between each concrete pouring event.
SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture; Construction Management Plan (February 23, 2009
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation
Implementation of the proposed project will require the exportation of more than 25,000 cubic yards of
earth material to the Brea Olinda Landfill, resulting in the generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck
trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase. Grading and excavation 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. Although a maximum of up to 44 haul truck trips per day
(based on a 15- minute discharge rate from the site) could be generated by the daily grading activities, the
Construction Management Plan limits the number of heavy truck trips to 27 to 29 trips per day during the
three excavation "segments" as indicated in Table 4.2 -1. Other construction - related heavy truck trips
generated by the proposed project are those related to concrete pouring, which will account for a total of
622 trips in 12 concrete pour events that would take 30 to 40 days each within the 18 -month Phase II
period. Concrete truck traffic would be generated on only three to five days during each concrete pour
event. In addition, truck traffic is that related to material delivery to the site (i.e., material deliveries) would
average two to four heavy trucks per week during the final nine months of the construction phase.
The Construction Management Plan has incorporated several measures to ensure that the construction
traffic would not result in significant impacts in the residential neighborhood. Specifically, the CMP
includes the following:
The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump
trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via
East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue,
and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles will exit
by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East
Coast Highway.
Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer
site /location if available at the time grading occurs) . Dump trucks leaving from East
Coast Highway will travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing
northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt
hauling shall occur only between Labor Day and Memorial Day.
All deliveries will use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting
from Marguerite Avenue.
The contractor will also request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area
during construction , as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of
all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles will take place on -site or
within the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by the construction valet
team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., will arrive
at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no
more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks will not queue on Carnation
Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks will exit the project area via the haul
route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) will be required to shut off their
engines during the loading /off- loading process.
To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person will be
retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways.
Traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works
Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not
obstructed.
Draft Environmental impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Dreg Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation
Potential construction - related traffic impacts, which could include slowing of local traffic and impeding
turning movements at private driveways would be avoided through the implementation of the measures
prescribed in the CMP. 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, the
Construction Management Plan has addressed all aspects of the construction phase, including traffic
control and haul routes by regulating the number of haul trucks accessing and leaving the site, for
instance. The construction traffic (i.e., a maximum of four trips per hour) would not adversely affect any
intersection operations during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours; therefore, no significant traffic impacts
would occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, 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.
The proposed Construction Management Plan is enforceable through monitoring, which will be the
responsibility of the contractor. Additional restrictions may be imposed by the Public Works Department
in the event traffic congestion problems arise.
Construction Parking
The total construction period is estimated to extend approximately 32 months over four phases that vary
in duration from five to 18 months. During these construction phases, the daily construction employee
work force will vary from phase to phase, depending on the construction activity. Nonetheless, it is
estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the job site each day during Phase I and 45 workers
each day during Phase II. During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an average of
60 to 80 workers would be expected to be on -site on a daily basis.
In order to ensure that adequate employee parking is provided to workers during each phase of
construction, the CMP includes a detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the following:
Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean
Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). In stead, the applicant will
secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying
number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s)
will be located within a five -mile radius of the site. The off -site parking agreement shall
be presented to the City prior to the issuance of permits required for the phase of
construction that will require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one
of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to
Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location
possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces.
Shuttles will transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project
site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans will run up to eight trips each morning
and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the
jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will also be encouraged
throughout the duration of the construction phases.
Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers will be permitted to park in the completed
on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site
once the parking garage is completed. Personnel will be provided to assist in parking the
construction workers on -site.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2-4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2— Traffic and Circulation
As previously indicated, construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation
Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition will be monitored daily
by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to
short-term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and
consultants. Carpooling will also be encouraged among professionals.
4.2.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impact
The net changes in trip generation, which are summarized in Table 4.2 -2, assume that only three of the
units are occupied, consistent with the "baseline" condition. As indicated in the table, project
implementation represents an increase of 24 trips per day, including 2 a.m. peak hour trips and 2 p.m.
peak hour trips. When compared to the potential occupancy of the 15 dwelling units that exist on the site,
the project would generate 57 fewer daily trips and 4 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 6 fewer p.m. peak
hour trips.
Table 4.2 -2
Net Change in Traffic Generation
The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day.
As indicated in Table 4.2 -2, the proposed project does not reach the minimum threshold; therefore, a
traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in
total dwelling units, it 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 in excess of established
thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant
long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required.
Parking Ingress /Egress
The project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking
spaces for the 6 condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include 16 for residents,
eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space; two parking spaces have also been provided for golf
carts. In addition, the garage is also equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -5
Dwelling
Daily
AM Peak
PM Peak
Land Use
Units
ADT
ADT
ADT
Potential
15
104
8
10
Occupant;
c
Baselin e
3
23
2
2
Proposed
8
47
4
4
Net Change
from Baseline
5
24
2
2
'Assumes all units are occupied.
2 "Baseline" conditions reflects 3 units currently occupied, including
the SFD
home and two apartments.
SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers
The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day.
As indicated in Table 4.2 -2, the proposed project does not reach the minimum threshold; therefore, a
traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in
total dwelling units, it 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 in excess of established
thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant
long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required.
Parking Ingress /Egress
The project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking
spaces for the 6 condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include 16 for residents,
eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space; two parking spaces have also been provided for golf
carts. In addition, the garage is also equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -5
Aene PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 - Traffic and Circulation
spaces, which can be used by the residents themselves to increase their own parking from two spaces per
unit to three per unit.
Access to the parking garage is proposed to be via a driveway on Carnation Avenue, which leads directly
to /from vehicle elevators located at the face of the building. 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 four feet below street
level and do not take access via the proposed elevators. 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 the 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 entrance elevator will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that it 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 when it is not in use, thus minimizing the potential for creating
a vehicle queue.
Inside the elevator, another keypad 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.
Two spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. These spaces are within the three sub-
basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by vehicle 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 4 spaces for guests for a total of 20 spaces for the proposed 8 -unit project. As
indicated in Table 4.2 -3, the project proposes 25 parking spaces for residents and guests, exceeding the
minimum 20 off - street parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. Six additional parking spaces are
also provided for six of the units by employing the use of the lifts.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aene PA2005 -196- Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.2 -3
Proposed Off-Street Parking Requirements
Section 4.2— Traffic and Circulation
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 (3) additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition
of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak
summer /tourist season.
The approaches to /from the doors are designed such that motorists drive straight in and straight out of the
elevators. Exiting vehicles proceed when the door opens and do not face another entering vehicle. A driver
wishing to exit the garage utilizes the "exit" elevator, which is adjacent to, but does not conflict with the "entry"
elevator. The entire elevator loading, elevator motion and unloading procedure requires between one and
one and one half minutes.
The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the
immediate vicinity of the project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. The
study was conducted in order to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing at the property. Traffic
counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three
condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based
on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute
and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute
arrived at the same time; however, that was associated with the 42 -uinit complex. Based on the actual field -
measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry of the
8 -unit project (only seven of which will utilize the elevators) back out onto Carnation Avenue.
Although a vehicle back -up onto Carnation Avenue is expected to be a rare occurrence due to the proximity
of the elevators to Carnation Avenue, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in
the study prepared for the proposed project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest; the
traffic volumes observed were 24 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. These
figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in
less than two to three minutes.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -7
Code
No. of Required
No. of Parking
Type
Requirement
Parking Spaces
Spaces Provided
Multi - Family Residential
2 Spaces /Unit'
16
232
4 or more DUs
Guests
0.5 /S ace /unit
4
8
Total
20
31
'Includes one (1) covered parking space.
2Includes 17 "at- grade' parking spaces and 6 "lift" parking (i.e., parking spaces located above
surface parking spaces requiring the use of a lift).
3Total parking does not include two (2) golf cart parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces also
provided. All parking spaces are covered.
SOURCE: Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.030)
Brion Jeannette Architecture
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 (3) additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition
of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak
summer /tourist season.
The approaches to /from the doors are designed such that motorists drive straight in and straight out of the
elevators. Exiting vehicles proceed when the door opens and do not face another entering vehicle. A driver
wishing to exit the garage utilizes the "exit" elevator, which is adjacent to, but does not conflict with the "entry"
elevator. The entire elevator loading, elevator motion and unloading procedure requires between one and
one and one half minutes.
The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the
immediate vicinity of the project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. The
study was conducted in order to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing at the property. Traffic
counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three
condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based
on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute
and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute
arrived at the same time; however, that was associated with the 42 -uinit complex. Based on the actual field -
measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry of the
8 -unit project (only seven of which will utilize the elevators) back out onto Carnation Avenue.
Although a vehicle back -up onto Carnation Avenue is expected to be a rare occurrence due to the proximity
of the elevators to Carnation Avenue, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in
the study prepared for the proposed project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest; the
traffic volumes observed were 24 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. These
figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in
less than two to three minutes.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation
The parking garage design is not limited to the access via vehicle elevator rather than ramps. As previously
indicated, the garage is also proposed to be equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential
spaces. The lifts will be used by the residents to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three
spaces per unit (for six of the eight units). The lift operation requires the lower space to be vacant before the
lift is either raised or lowered. Review of the floor plans revealed that there is available space behind the lifts
to back a vehicle off or pull another on, then raise the left to open up the lower space. Therefore, in order to
have three spaces per unit, the vehicle in the lower space must be moved elsewhere (e.g., perhaps out of the
garage itself) while the lift is being operated.
The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not
create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the project
because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six
units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an
emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case.
Circulation Element Consistency
Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with
the applicable policies adopted with the Circulation Element. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides
a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant
policies in the Circulation Element and the CLUP. In addition, the proposed project is also consistent with the
applicable goals and policies articulated in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide adopted by SCAG,
as reflected in Table 4.1 -3 in Section 4.1.
Public Transportation
There are no transit facilities or service either on or along the frontage of this site (i.e., Ocean Boulevard
and Carnation Avenue); however, public transit service is provided along West Coast Highway and other
arterial streets within the City. 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 due to the reduction in the number of dwelling units on the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
4.2.5 Mitigation Measures
All of the potential construction traffic impacts will be avoided through the implementation of the measures
identified in Section 4.2.4.1 and prescribed in the CMP for the proposed project. Furthermore, no significant
long -term impacts (e.g., queuing, congestion, etc.) are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required.
4.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the standard conditions identified in Section 4.2.3 and the measures prescribed in the
Construction Management Plan will ensure that potentially significant traffic impacts will be reduced to a less
than significant level; no mitigation measures are required. No significant unavoidable traffic impacts would
occur as a result of project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.2 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Existing Conditions
Climate
Climate in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The
Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the
southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi-
permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific; the resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool
ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot
weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do occur.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s,
measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less
variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station
closest to the site is the Newport Beach Station. The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at
this station in the past 71 years ranged from 63.3 °F in January to 73.5 °F in August, with an annual
average maximum of 67.8 °F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station in the
past 71 years ranged from 47.0 °F in January to 63.4 °F in August, with an annual average minimum of
54.8 °F. January is typically the coldest month, and August is typically the warmest month in this area of
the Basin.
During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the
SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air
contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons.
From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the
appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore drainage
winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the SCAB are trapped and begin to accu-
mulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is
an important indicator of air stagnation and the potential for buildup of primary air contaminants.
Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where
temperature increases with altitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base
is known as the mixing height. Persistent low inversions and cool coastal air tend to create morning fog
and low stratus clouds. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the SCAB and are about 25
percent more likely along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by
temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface.
Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime, when the ground is cool, than during daylight hours when
the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the
temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base, causing heating
along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to
allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot
summer day when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the
day, preventing excessive contaminant buildup.
The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant
concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are
lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas
are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the
greatest pollution problem is accumulation of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen due to
extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and
oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog.
Air Quality Management
Federal Regulations /Standards
Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality
standards ( NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed "criteria" pollutants.
Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have
established ambient air quality standards (AAQS), or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to
protect public health.
Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment'
or "non- attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary
NAAQS. Non - attainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA.
The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of
the CAA for the SCAB.
The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and fine particulate
matter in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a
decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and
particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On
February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards
under the CAA. The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial
cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected arguments that the EPA
took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in
1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying that
the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its authority to enforce such rules.
In April 2003, the EPA was cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
implement the eight -hour ground -level ozone standard. The EPA issued the proposed rule implementing
the eight -hour ozone standard in April 2003. The EPA completed final eight -hour non - attainment status
on April 15, 2004. The EPA revoked the one -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005.
The EPA issued the final particulate matter (PM2.5) implementation rule in fall 2004. The EPA issued final
designations for PM2,5 attainment status on December 14, 2004. The EPA lowered the 24 -hour PM2.5
standard from 65 to 35 ug /m3 and revoked the annual average PM10 standard in December 2006.
State Regulations /Standards
The State of California began to set California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS) in 1969 under the
mandate of the Mulford - Carrell Act. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In
addition to the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS, there are CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen
sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles.
Originally, there were no attainment deadlines for CAAQS. However, the CCAA of 1988 provided a time
frame and a planning structure to promote their attainment. The CCAA required non - attainment areas in
the State to prepare attainment plans and proposed to classify each such area on the basis of the
submitted plan, as follows: moderate, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1994;
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
serious, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1997; and severe, if CAAQS
attainment could not be conclusively demonstrated at all.
The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in the emissions of
non - attainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The State has currently
classified the Basin as a non - attainment area for three criteria pollutants; 03, PM10, and PM2.5•
Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and other air districts throughout the State. The federal CAA Amendments of 1977
required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the
federal standards in non - attainment areas of the state.
The ARB coordinates and oversees both State and federal air pollution control programs in California. It
oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air
quality management plans for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for EPA approval.
The ARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air
districts. Data collected at these stations are used by the ARB to classify air basins as attainment or non -
attainment with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The
ARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has
been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source emissions and develop local non -
attainment plans.
The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the Basin.
Every three years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -year
horizon. The SCAQMD adopted the 2003 AQMP in August 2003 and forwarded it to ARB for review and
approval. The ARB approved a modified version of the 2003 AQMP and forwarded it to the EPA in
October 2003 for review and approval.
The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for 03 and PM10;
replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a
maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) standard that the Basin has met since 1992.
This revision to the AQMP also addresses several State and federal planning requirements and
incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories,
ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. This AQMP is
consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to
the ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard.
However, this revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those
incorporated in the 1997/1999 Plan) to offset increased emission estimates from mobile sources and
meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act.
The SCAQMD has adopted the 2007 AQMP, which it describes as a regional and multi- agency effort (i.e.,
the SCAQMD Governing Board, ARB, SCAG, and EPA). State and federal planning requirements will
include developing control strategies, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, and
maintenance plans. The 2007 AQMP also incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the
form of updated emission inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air
quality modeling tools. The SCAQMD has forwarded the 2007 AQMP to the ARB and EPA for their review
and approval.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
Ambient Air Quality
Regional Air Quality
Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health -based ambient
air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), CO, nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SOA coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,o),
fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set
standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards
are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
In addition to setting out primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of
episode criteria for ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer
to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public
health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage
Three. Table 4.3 -1 lists the health effects of these criteria pollutants and their potential sources. Because
the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of
safety (EPA), these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin.
The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS.
Table 4.3 -1
Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutant
Sources
Primary Effects
Ozone (03)
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
Aggravation of respiratory and
with nitrogen oxides in the presence of
cardiovascular diseases.
sunlight.
Irritation of eyes.
Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
Plant leaf injury.
Nitrogen
Motor vehicle exhaust.
Aggravation of respiratory illness.
Dioxide (NO2)
High temperature stationary
Reduced visibility.
combustion.
Reduced plant growth.
Atmospheric reactions.
Formation of acid rain.
Carbon
Byproducts from incomplete
Reduced tolerance for exercise.
Monoxide
combustion of fuels and other carbon
Impairment of mental function.
(CO)
containing substances, such as motor
Impairment of fetal development.
exhaust.
Death at high levels of exposure.
Natural events, such as decomposition
Aggravation of some heart diseases
of organic matter.
(angina).
Suspended
Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
Reduced lung function.
Particulate
Construction activities.
Aggravation of the effects of gaseous
Matter (PM2.5
Industrial processes.
pollutants.
and PM10)
Atmospheric chemical reactions.
Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases.
Increased cough and chest discomfort.
Soiling.
Reduced visibility.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.3 - Air
Pollutant
Sources
Primag Effects
Sulfur Dioxide
Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil
Aggravation of respiratory diseases
(SO2)
fuels.
(asthma, emphysema).
PMio
Smelting of sulfur- bearing metal ores.
Reduced lung function.
PM2.5
Industrial processes.
Irritation of eyes.
CO
Attainment (except Los Angeles Count
Reduced visibility.
NO2
Attainment
Plant injury.
S02
Attainment
Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
Lead
Attainment
finishes, coatings, etc.
Lead (Pb)
Contaminated soil (e.g., from leaded
Impairment of blood function and nerve
SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007
fuels and lead -based paints).
construction.
Behavioral and hearing problems in
children.
SOURCE: Air Resources Board 2005
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD and other air districts with the authority to
manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when
minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this would be the motor
vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. The SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of
pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB).
Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status
Table 4.3 -2 summarizes the attainment status in the SCAB for the major criteria pollutants.
Table 4.3 -2
Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin
Pollutant
State
Federal
Ozone -1 hour
Non - attainment
Standard Revoked
June 2005
Ozone -8 hour
Not Established
Severe 17 Non - attainment
PMio
Non - attainment
Serious Non - attainment
PM2.5
Non - attainment
Nan - attainment
CO
Attainment (except Los Angeles Count
Attainment
NO2
Attainment
Attainment/Maintenance
S02
Attainment
Attainment
Lead
Attainment
Attainment
Ail others
Attainment/Unclassifled
Attainment/Unclassified
SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007
The criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB based on ARB's Area Designations,
Activities, and Maps are described below.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
G16dd
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.3 — Air
Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and
reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas
typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung
function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in
sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during
summer and early fall. The entire SCAB is designated as a non - attainment area for the State one -
hour ozone standard. The EPA has officially designated the status for the SCAB regarding the
eight -hour ozone standard as "Severe 17;' which means the SCAB has until 2021 to attain the
federal eight -hour ozone standard.
Carbon Monoxide. CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely
from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and
impairments to central nervous system functions. The entire SCAB has been designated as an
attainment area for the federal CO standards. In addition, Orange County has been designated
by the ARB to be an attainment area for State CO standards.
Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen dioxide (NOA a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a color-
less, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These
compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the
photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high
concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NO2
decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. The entire SCAB has not
exceeded both federal and State standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past five years with
published monitoring data. It is designated as an attainment area under both federal and State
standards.
Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete
combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels.
SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate
matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire SCAB is in attainment with both
federal and State sulfur dioxide standards.
Lead. Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once
in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body
systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. The entire SCAB is in attainment
for the federal and State standards for lead.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid
droplets found in the air. Coarse particles (all particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in
diameter, or PM10) derive from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding
operations. Fuel combustion and resultant exhaust from power plants and diesel buses and
trucks are primarily responsible for fine particle (less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or
PM2.5) levels. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions.
Coarse particles (PM1e) can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems
such as asthma. The EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PM2.5), which
penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health
effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at
concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM1e standards. These health
effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits
(primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory
symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma);
decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.3 — Air
lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The entire SCAB is a non -
attainment area for the federal and State PM1e and PM2.5standards.
Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD, together with the ARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The
air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa station, and its air quality trends are
representative of the ambient air quality in the project area. The pollutants monitored are CO, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The levels of particulate matter monitored at the Mission Viejo Station
(the station closest to the project site that monitors these pollutants) are included in these tables for
reference.
The ambient air quality data in Table 4.3 -3 shows that nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and CO levels are
below the relevant State and federal standards in the project area. Ozone levels exceed the State one -
hour standard and federal eight -hour ozone standard from one to two times a year in 2004 and were
below the federal and State standards in 2005 and 2006. The PM10 level monitored at the Mission Viejo
station exceeded the State annual arithmetic average standards in two of the past three years but has not
exceeded the federal standards since 1996. PM2.5 levels monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring
Station were below the federal standard in the past three years.
Table 4.3.3
Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa /Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations
Pollutant Standard
2004
2005
2006
Carbon Monoxide
Max 1 -hr concentration m
4.9
4.7
3.5
No. days exceeded: State
> 20 m/1 -hr
0
0
0
Federal
> 35 m/1 -hr
0
0
0
Max 8 -hr concentration m
4.1
3.2
3.0
No. days exceeded:State
9.0 m/8 -hr
0
0
0
Federal
9 m/8 -hr
0
0
0
Ozone
Max 1 -hr concentration m
0.104
0.085
0.074
No. days exceeded: State
> 0.09 m/1 -hr
2
0
0
Max 8 -hr concentration m
0.087
0.072
0.062
No. days exceeded: Federal
> 0.08 m/8 -hr
1
0
0
Particulates PM,o
Max 24 -hr concentration /m
47
41
57
No. days exceeded: State
> 50 lm /24 -hr
0
0
1
Federal
> 150 Im /24 -hr
0
0
0
Annual Arithmetic Average /m
24
18
21
Exceeded: State
> 20 /m ann. arith. av .
Yes
No
Yes
Federal
> 50 Im ann. arith. av .
No
No
No
Particulates PM2.5
Max 24 -hr concentration /m
49.4
35.3
46.9
No. days exceeded: Federal
> 65 /m /24 -hr
0
0
0
Annual Arithmetic Average /m
12
11
ND
Exceeded: State
> 12 /m ann. arith. av .
No
No
ND
Federal
> 15 /m ann. arith. av .
No
No
ND
Nitrogen Dioxide
Max 1 -hr concentration m
7
0.097
0.085
0.101
No. days exceeded: State
> 0.25 m /1 -hr
0
0
0
Annual arithmetic average concentration
(ppm)
0.016
0.014
0.015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
Pollutant
Standard
2004
2005
2006
> 0.053 ppm ann. arith.
Exceeded: Federal
avg.
No
No
No
Sulfur Dioxide
Max 24 -hr concentration m
0.008
0.008
0.005
No. days exceeded: State
> 0.04 m /24 -hr
0
0
0
Federal
> 0.14 m /24 -hr
0
0
0
Annual arithmetic average concentration
(Ppm)
0.002
0.001
0.001
> 0.030 ppm ann. arith.
Exceeded: Federal
avg.
No
No
No
PMIO and PM2s data from the Mission Viejo Station. All other data from the Costa Mesa station.
ppm — parts per million
pg /m3 — micrograms (of pollutant) per cubic meter (of air)
ND — No sufficient data.
SOURCE: EPA and ARB; 2004 to 2006
Global Warming
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and
oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near - surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2
°Celsius (1.1 t 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is
that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities ". The
increased amounts of carbon dioxide (COO and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes
of the human - induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land
clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary
reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and
ozone. In the last 200 years, mankind has been releasing substantial quantities of GHGs into the
atmosphere. These man -made emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming.
While man -made greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, some like the
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are completely new to the atmosphere.
Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and
evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tons of carbon
dioxide each year worldwide, far outweighing the estimated 7 billion tons of man -made emissions per
year from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture. Nevertheless,
natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land and ocean - dwelling plant species, cannot
keep pace with this extra input of man -made carbon dioxide, and consequently the gas is building up in
the atmosphere.
Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen.
Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Man -made sources include the mining and
burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies and the
burying of waste in landfills. Total annual emissions of methane are about 500 million tons, with man-
made emissions accounting for the majority. As for carbon dioxide, the major removal process of
atmospheric methane — (i.e., chemical breakdown in the atmosphere) cannot keep pace with source
emissions, resulting in an increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air
In the fall of 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the global warming bill, into law. AB 32 codifies
the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 requires that that the State Air
Resources Board adopt regulations by January 1, 2008, to require reporting and verification of statewide
greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with that program. To date, there are no
regulations adopted to implement AB 32 and there are no significance thresholds yet established for GHG
emissions.
The emission levels in California have been estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1990,
473 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2000, 532 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2010, and 600
million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2020. AB 32's goals for emission reductions have been estimated to
be approximately 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2020 based on the 2007 AQMP. Achieving AB 32's
target will require significant development and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and
extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources. In addition to reducing GHGs, such strategies
would concurrently reduce emissions of criteria pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion.
4.3.2 Significance Criteria
The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an "air quality" perspective, that a project would normally be
judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
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
standards.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively considerable" is defined to
mean "that the incremental effects of an individual 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"
In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment,
the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and
its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD
has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead
agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project would generate significant air emissions. If the
thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant.
While, the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by
lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is
significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of the air
pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These threshold factors are included
below.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -9
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Construction Phase
Section 4.3 — Air
The following significance thresholds for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis
for construction emissions:
• 75 pounds per day for ROG
• 100 pounds per day for NOx
• 550 pounds per day for CO
• 150 pounds per day of SOx
• 150 pounds per day for PM10
• 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed
project, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered significant.
Operational Phase
Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants of special regional concern.
Based upon this categorization, the following emissions significance thresholds have been established by the
SCAQMD for project operations:
55 pounds per day for ROG
55 pounds per day for NOx
550 pounds per day for CO
150 pounds per day of SOx
150 pounds per day for PM1e
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Projects with daily operation - related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds may be
considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be
mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above.
Localized Emission Standards
In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, the SCAQMD has established the following
threshold criteria to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to an exceedance of the State
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
California State 1 -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
California State 8 -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
California State 1 -hour NO2 standard of 0.18 ppm
SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM10 standard of 10.4 pg /m3
SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM2.5 standard of 10.4 pg /m3
SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM1e standard of 2.5 pg /m3
SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM2.5 standard of 2.5 pg /m3
The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the
project are above or below State standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is
considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these
standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are
considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. Again, the
SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -10
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.3.3 Standard Conditions
Section 4.3 —Air
SC 4.3 -1 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for
dust control associated with grading and construction activities.
SC 4.3 -2 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the
use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
SC 4.3 -3 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG
content in asphalt.
SC 4.3 -4 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG
content in architectural coatings.
SC 4.3 -5 The proposed project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design requirements as well
as the provide window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in
accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
As indicated above, the project will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) during construction.
SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general
and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB. The
general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction
(or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond
the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing
an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter
as determined through PM1e high - volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM1e
sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately
documented.
In accordance with Rule 403, the SCAQMD requires that contractors implement Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for construction activities. Rule 403 identifies two sets of specific measures, one for
projects less than 50 acres, and another set of conditions for projects that exceed 50 acres.
4.3.4 Potential Impacts
4.3.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction Impacts
Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities
necessary to implement the proposed project. Major sources of emissions during construction typically
include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of
soil and material disturbance during demolition and grading activities, and the emissions of reactive organic
compounds during site paving and painting of the structures.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -11
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air
As reflected in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), an extensive construction management plan was developed
to include all phases of the proposed construction effort on a day -by -day basis. Equipment emissions are
based on the OFFROAD2007 emissions model while vehicle emissions are based in the EMFAC2007
emissions model. In accordance with requirements under SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust suppression, a 55
percent control factor is applied to the demolition activities. A similar control efficiency is used by the
URBEMIS2007 model for twice daily watering of graded surfaces.
The project site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of
this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation
of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the
URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model,
a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects
constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials.
The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other.
Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend this to six days a week.
The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that
overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model
considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows
that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the site.
The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with
the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to
contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of
VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to
receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also
releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the project and these surfaces will be of concrete
construction.
Based on the emissions estimated for each phase of the project's construction, none of the significance
thresholds for any of the pollutants would be exceeded on a daily basis. Table 1 in Appendix D summarizes
the daily emissions projected for site construction. As noted above, some phases of construction would
occur five days a week whereas others would use six days. The table presents those five days of overlap in
calculation of the worst -case days. (Greenhouse gases, discussed later in this analysis, also include these
"sixth day" emissions.) As indicated in the emissions calculation presented in Appendix D, all daily emissions
are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. Equipment and vehicle
calculation spreadsheets showing the daily specifics for each phase are also included in Appendix D.
Short-Term Localized Impacts
In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized
ambient pollutant concentrations. If these concentrations were to exceed the State ambient air quality
standards at receptor locations, a potentially significant impact could occur.
The SCAQMD has developed screening tables for the construction of projects up to five acres in size. These
tables are included in Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February
2005) (Sample Construction Scenarios). The emissions values included in the screening tables are based on
the emissions produced at the site (e.g., air compressors, back hoes, etc.) and do not include mobile source
emissions (i.e., trucks and worker vehicles) that are spread over a much larger area. The Aerie residential
project site is consists of about 1.4 acres so it fits within the Sample Construction Scenarios.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -12
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
Screening level allowable daily emissions are then calculated from the "mass -rate look -up tables" included in
Appendix L of the Sample Construction Scenarios. The project borders on Source Receptor Areas (SRA) 18
and 20. In accordance with Appendix L of Sample Construction Scenarios, projects of 1.4 acres in size
located in either SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) or SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal) would
not create significant localized emissions impacts if CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 levels do not exceed 392.2,
185.2, 5.2, and 5.2 pounds per day, respectively. According to Table 1 in Appendix D, peak day CO and
NOx levels are projected at 50.90 and 87.02 pounds per day, respectively, including both on -site equipment
and off -site mobile sources. On -site values are well under the screening table limits and the localized impact
of these two pollutants is less than significant.
The highest levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are produced during the initial demolition phase with the majority of
these emissions due to fugitive dust. These activities are estimated to result in 5.94 pounds of PM10 and 1.75
pounds of PM2,5 per day produced from on -site sources, including both equipment exhaust and fugitive dust.
These values include a dust suppression control efficiency of 55 percent as based on requirements of
SCAQMD Rule 403. While the value for PM2.5, is under the screening threshold and less than significant, the
PM1e value exceeds it slightly. All other on -site construction phases and activities are projected to remain
within the PM10 5.2 pounds - per -day screening threshold and would not result in localized impacts.
The URBEMIS Model indicates that three - times, rather than twice -daily watering, would improve the dust
control efficiency to a minimum of 65 percent (rather than 55 percent). As indicated in Section 6.2 of the
Construction Management Plan, during grading activities, any exposed soil areas will be watered at least four
times per day and stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials will be covered or
watered three times daily. Implementation of these measures, which are identified below, will ensure that
potential short-term dust impacts will not occur.
The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control Plan approved by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (under Rule 403).
Dust will be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a
minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. 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 three times daily. In
addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site.
On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the 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 wind
conditions exceed 325 miles per hour.
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.
This action would reduce PM10 associated with fugitive dust from 5.20 pounds per day to 4.04 pounds per
day. When combined with PM10 from on -site equipment, daily on -site PM10 emissions are reduced to 4.78
pounds per day. This value with the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP is under the
screening threshold of 5.2 pounds per day. Therefore, the potential PM10 impact is less than significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -13
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 - Air Quality
4.3.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts
Mobile Source Emissions
The occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for
condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these
values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case
scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94
average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance
for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook
recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone.
Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the
higher of the two values are included in Table 4.3-4. Note that all values are within their respective threshold
values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix D.
Table 4.3 -4
Daily Operational Emissions'
Source
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10
PM 5
COz
Mobile Sources
0.47
0.64
5.43
0.01
1.19
0.23
673.48
Natural Gas
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.13
Landscape Maintenance
0.12
0.02
1.55
0.00
0.01
0.01
2.81
Consumer Products
0.41
-
-
Structural Maintenance
0.01
-
-
--
-
Operational Total
1.02
0.74
7.01
0.01
1.20
0.24
776.42
Threshold
55
55
550
150
150
55
NT
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
'All figures in pounds per day.
ZAveraged from the summer and winter emissions.
3 N - No Threshold.
SOURCE: Synectecology (December 2008
Stationary Source Emissions
In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The
combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be
maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the
structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC
emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in
Table 4.3-4. Similar to mobile source emissions, all stationary source emissions are below their respective
threshold values and the impact is less than significant.
Long -Term Localized Impacts
Long -term emissions also have the potential to exceed ambient air quality standards. Because operational
emissions are mostly the product vehicle travel, these impacts are typically produced along the roadways.
Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -14
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air
the atmosphere; adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of
localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion that have the potential to create "pockets" of CO
are called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and
idle time is increased.
As noted above, as a worst -case scenario, this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the
project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the EMFAC2007 computer model, the
peak traffic hour in Orange County includes 7.7 percent of the daily vehicle miles traveled. Assuming that the
vehicles associated with the Aerie project follow a similar pattern, approximately seven vehicle trips would
occur during the peak hour. This value is too small to add measurably to the CO emissions concentrations at
any local intersections.
Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Criteria Pollutants
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 project is of a size
such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold
values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the project does not add significantly to a cumulative
impact.
'411110MOTM
The project site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction.
Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could
include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal
system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and flashing would be
removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed.
Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403
(Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989 and amended April
8, 1994. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from
building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The
requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal
procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and
landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to
maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels,
signs, and markings.
Any demolition work involving asbestos - containing material must be identified and potential emissions of
asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material
would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks:
Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified
environmental laboratory, and
SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules
(options provided in Rule), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal
methods.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -15
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that
has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All
workers must undergo 40 hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive 8 hours of refresher
training on a yearly basis.
Similarly, lead paint is as a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal,
workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials.
Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure
environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through
adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general
public is not allowed access to the demolition -site.
Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant.
Objectionable Odors
Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth
movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to
nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By
the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to
well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment
and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but
not significant, air quality impact because they will be short-term in nature and would not affect a significant
number of people.
Greenhouse Gases
At the present time, greenhouse gases are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance
criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used
to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision - makers with as much
information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the proposed development. As indicated in Table 1 in Appendix D and Table 4.3-4,
greenhouse gas emissions for both construction activities and operational activities (i.e., mobile and
stationary source emissions) have been calculated to provide decision - makers with information related to
greenhouse gases. These impacts are summarized below.
Construction
Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. Construction
CO2 emissions are also included in Table 4.3-4, above. In accordance with the projected construction
schedule, approximately 4,335,633 pounds (2,168 tons) of CO2 would be produced over the active
construction period.
Site Operations
In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically COZ, is due to
vehicle travel and energy consumption. As indicated in Table 2 in Appendix D, the URBEMIS2007 model
projects that on average 776.42 pounds (0.4 ton) of CO2 would be produced daily or about 283,393 pounds
(142 tons) per year. These emissions include mobile sources, the combustion of natural gas for space and
water heating, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -16
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
The generation of electricity also creates GHG emissions. Electricity used in the SCAB comes from within
local areas, the State, and other states. There is no way to determine the point of origin for these emissions
and as such, these emissions are not quantified by the URBEMIS model, nor are they typically included in
CEQA analyses. However, because GHG are of concern at the global level, and the generation of this
electricity could add to global CO2, the CO2 that is attributable to the generation of electrical power was also
quantified.
The SCAQMD Handbook includes estimates of electrical usage by land use while the Source Inventory of
Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2006) provides CO2 estimates from the generation of
electricity. Based Table A9-11 1-A of the SCAQMD Handbook, each of the eight units would consume about
5,626.50 kilowatts per year. The eight units combined would then use 45,012 kilowatt -hours per year and the
generation of this electricity will result in about 14 tons of CO2 per year. All told, the project then generates
about 156 tons of CO2 per year. Electrical use and its emissions calculations are included in the appendix.
In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric
tons (521.4 million short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2
equivalent for 2010. At approximately 156 tons per year, the project operations represent less than 0.00003
percent of this State's annual 2010 CO2 emissions' budget (and would represent an even smaller percentage
of the 2013 CO2 budget).
Recognizing that there is a great amount of public concern regarding GHGs, the majority of the information
given above is for disclosure purposes as required by CEQA. There is no agreement among air quality
experts, or guidance at the State level, regarding the level at which an individual project's incremental GHG
effect is cumulatively considerable. Given the emerging level of experience within the air quality industry with
GHG analyses, coupled with the fact that the policies implementing the state goal of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32,
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 have not been adequately defined, there is no way to state
with reasonable scientific certainty that the project would conflict with these policies.
Notwithstanding the lack of guidance regarding GHGs, the proposed Aerie project has been designed
utilizing "green" architecture criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and
passive sustainable design elements that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy
utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. The active and passive "green" strategies
that will be implemented include:
Passive Strategies
• Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and
reduce energy usage.
• Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain
apertures.
• Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat
gain.
• Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal
convection dynamics.
• Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid
systems).
• Gray water retention for property irrigation.
• Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials.
• Integration of California drought tolerant landscape materials.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -17
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality
Active Strategies
• Solar domestic hot water and pool heating
• Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity
• Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems.
• Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist.
Other Design Elements
Renewable wood materials and sustainable fly ash concrete construction.
• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures.
• Cross ventilation systems.
• Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems.
AQMP Consistency
The proposed project represents the removal of 15 dwelling units and the replacement of those units with
eight condominiums. The project would neither result in growth- inducing impacts nor cause an exceedance
of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the project is of a size such that would not
create either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included
mitigation to reduce PMIo emissions during the demolition phase, the project would not result in significant
localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, does not present a
significant impact or conflict with the AQMP.
4.3.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant air quality impacts; no mitigation
measures are required.
4.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the Standard Conditions identified in Section 4.3.3 that require compliance with SCAQMD
and related regulatory requirements and implementation of the CMP measures prescribed to avoid project -
related PMIO demolition /construction emissions will ensure that potential air quality impacts do not exceed
SCAQMD significance thresholds. No mitigation measures are required and no significant unavoidable
impacts will occur as a result of project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.3 -18
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.4 NOISE
Section 4.4 - Noise
The analysis presented in this section of the Draft EIR summarizes the findings and recommendations of the
"Environmental Noise Study for the construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project
in the City of Newport Beach," prepared by Wieland Acoustics, Inc. (February 29,2009) as well as the
"Construction and Noise Vibration Study for: Aerie Residential Development," prepared by The Planning
Center (March 2009). These studies are includes in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively.
4.4.1 Existing Conditions
Noise
Newport Beach Noise Element
The City's Noise Element identifies four zone categories: Zone A, "Clearly Compatible;" Zone B,
"Normally Compatible;" Zone C, "Normally Incompatible;" and Zone D, "Clearly Incompatible" These
standards, identified in Table 4.4 -1, are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts.
For residential uses, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible
and Normally Compatible; noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are characterized as Normally Incompatible
and Clearly Incompatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development
should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and
needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Interior noise levels up to
45 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for residential uses.
Table 4.4 -1
Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -1
Community Noise Equivalent
Land Use Categories
Level (CNEL)
Categories
Uses
<55
55-
60-
65-
70-
75-
>80
60
65
70
75
80
Residential
Single Family, Two Family, Multiple
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
Family
Residential
Mixed Use
A
A
A
C
C
C
D
Residential
Mobile Home
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
Commercial
Regional, District
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
Commercial
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant,
Regional, Village
Movie Theatre
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
District, Special
Commercial
Office Building, Research and
Industrial
Development, Professional Offices, City
A
A
A
B
B
C
D
Institutional
Office Building
Commercial
Recreational
Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium,
B
B
C
Institutional
Meeting Hall
C
D
D
D
Civic Center
Commercial
Children's Amusement Park, Miniature
Recreation
Golf Course, Go -cart Track, Equestrian
A
A
A
B
B
D
D
Center Sports Club
Commercial
Automobile Service Station, Auto
General, Special
Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing,
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Industrial,
I Wholesale, Utilities
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.4 - Noise
The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non -
transportation sources. Other noise impacts are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, specifically in Chapter 10.26. These noise standards are summarized in Table
4.4 -2.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-2
Community Noise Equivalent
Land Use Categories
Level (C EL)
Categories
Uses
<55
55–
60–
65–
70–
75–
>80
60
65
70
75
80
Institutional
Institutional
Hospital, Church, Library, Schools'
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
Classroom
O en Space
Parks
A
A
A
B
C
D
D
Open Space
Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat
Agriculture
Agriculture
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Zone A: Clearly Compatible— Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings
involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Zone B: Normally Compatible —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis
of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are
determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will
normally suffice.
Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new
construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and
needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element); 2006.
The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non -
transportation sources. Other noise impacts are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, specifically in Chapter 10.26. These noise standards are summarized in Table
4.4 -2.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.4 -2
City of Newport Beach Noise Standards
Section 4.4 - Noise
Land Use Categories
Allowable Noise Level (d BA L
Interior
Exterior '
7 AM -10 PM
10 PM -7 AM
7 AM -10 PM
10 PM -7 AM
Categories
Uses
Single Family, Two Family,
45
40
55
50
Residential
Multiple Family Zone I
Residential Portions of Mixed
45
40
60
50
Use Developments Zone 111
Commercial (Zone 11)
N/A
N/A
65
60
Commercial
Industrial or Manufacturing
or Industrial
Zone IV
NIA
NIA
70
70
Schools, Day Care Centers,
Institutional
Churches, Libraries, Museums,
45
40
55
50
Health Care Institutions Zone I
'If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard.
Zit shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any
noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled
by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the
following:
The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15- minute period;
A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of
time (measured using A- weighted slow response).
In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said
category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial
property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property.
If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level
standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
SOURCE: City of Ne ort Beach Noise Element
Section 10.28 of the Noise Control Ordinance regulates noise associated with both construction activities
and property maintenance. The City expressly prohibits noise - generating construction activities or
property maintenance between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7;00 a.m. on weekdays and between the hours
of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday; such activities are prohibited on Sunday and federal holidays
(Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations).
Ambient Noise Levels
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) L..; 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) Lq. The maximum noise levels (Lm,,)
range from 63.1 dB(A) to 80.9 dB(A) L., in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6
dB(A) to 85.9 dB(A) L. directly across the channel. The average and maximum ambient noise levels in
the project environs are summarized in Table 4.4 -3.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.4 -3
Ambient Noise Levels
Section 4.4 - Noise
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 Ba side 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)
63.4 — 85.9 dB (A)
SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (February 27, 2009
Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion (i.e., back and forth movement) through a solid medium in which the
motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration and is normally
associated with activities such as railroads or industrial equipment but can also be associated with
construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement
is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous
speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is
described as acceleration. These descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building
damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of
construction equipment can cause groundbome vibration. Similarly, during the operational phase of a
project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated
form vibration of a structure or items within a structure. For this reason, potential groundbome vibration is
best measured in terms of velocity and acceleration.
Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundbome vibration,
including blasting and demolition of structures, which generate the highest vibration values. Vibratory
compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at
distances within 200 feet of the source. In addition, heavy trucks can also generate groundbome vibrations,
which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial
quantities of vibration due to their engineers, steel wheels, and heavy loads.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not set specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides groundbome vibration criteria for various types of special
buildings that are sensitive to vibration for both vibration annoyance and cosmetic damage. Cosmetic
damage includes, but is not limited to, damage to fences, property lines fences and walls, flatwork (e.g.,
paved areas.) The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and variable. As
noted in the FTA manual, "although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it
is not suitable for evaluating human response" (FTA 2006). This is because it takes time for the human
body to respond to vibration signals. Table 4.4 -4 lists the FTA human annoyance criteria for groundborne
vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for various types of vibration - sensitive land
uses.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.4 -4
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance)
Section 4.4 - Noise
Land Use Category
Max Lv VdB'
Description
Workshop
90
Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non
II. Engineered concrete and mason no plaster)
0.3
sensitive areas.
Office
84
Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non sensitive areas.
Residential — Daytime
78
Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment.
Residential - Nighttime
72
Vibration not felt, but goundbome noise may be audible inside
quiet rooms.
'As measured in 1/3 octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz.
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (2006)
The Planning Center March 2009
The level at which groundbome vibration is strong enough to cause cosmetic damage has not been
determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are also reflected in the FTA criteria, summarized
in Table 4.4 -5. Wood -frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by
ground vibration than heavier buildings.
Table 4.4 -5
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Cosmetic Damage)
Building Category
PPV in /sec
VdB
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber no plaster)
0.5
102
II. Engineered concrete and mason no plaster)
0.3
98
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings
0.2
94
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage
0.12
90
NOTE: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second.
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (2006)
The Planning Center March 2009
Noise- and Vibration - Sensitive Land Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, schools, and open
space /recreation areas, where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety.
Off -site sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the existing single- and multiple - family
homes surrounding the project site. These noise - sensitive uses are affected by the existing noise levels
and would be potentially affected by noise from the project site during construction of the project and from
on -site operations.
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of
75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the
nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -5
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human
ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the "threshold of feeling." As the sound
reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear and is called the
"threshold of pain." A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The
ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas
than in outlying less developed areas.
4.4.2 Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines a project would have a potentially significant noise
and /or vibration impact if it would result in:
• Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
• 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.
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
• 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 or private airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
4.4.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.4 -1 In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section
10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction
and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating
construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These
days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of
materials to or from the site.
4.4.4 Potential Impacts
4.4.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction Noise
Short-term noise impacts associated with project implementation are typically associated with excavation,
grading, and erecting of buildings on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related
short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area; however,
construction noise would end upon completion of the construction activities for each of the development
and /or improvement phases.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 84
dBA Lmaz at the closest residential uses adjacent to the project site for very limited times when
construction occurs near the project's boundary. Although compliance with the construction hours
mandated by the City in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, it is anticipated that construction
related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially significant even with compliance
with the ordinance.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First,
construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the
proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Trucks
accessing the project site would generate noise levels on the order of 72.5 dBA at a distance of 50 feet'.
A truck traveling a 20 mph would cover a distance of 500 feet in 17 seconds, thereby increasing noise
levels briefly as the truck passes. Project - related trucks would travel to the site and be required to shut
down unnecessary idling while loading and unloading, after which it would take approximately 30 seconds
to startup and then depart. Due to the size constraints of the project site, it is anticipated that generally
only one truck would be delivering or hauling material to the site at any one time
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and
erection of the new building on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which
has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential
phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels
surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction
equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related
noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.
As noted in Table 3 -2 (Proposed Construction Phasing), certain phases of project construction would
occur simultaneously. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the
piece of equipment that produces the highest noise levels. The character of the noise levels surrounding
the construction site will change as work progresses, depending on the noise levels of the loudest piece
of construction equipment in use. A combination of construction vehicles and handheld power tools would
be used depending on the construction phase. Construction noise levels are based on those reported by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM
version 1.1, 2008). Table 4.4-4 lists noise levels for construction equipment from the RCNM. A noise
monitoring program was initiated to collect noise data from the metal stud framing and concrete formwork.
This monitoring data, which primarily involves hand tools, was necessary to supplement the noise data for
construction vehicles from the RCNM. As indicated in Table 4.4 -6, typical noise levels range up to
83.3 dBA L,y at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which
includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the
noisiest construction equipment is typically earthmoving equipment.
'Based on the Federal Highway Roadway Construction Noise Model for dump trucks.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
Table 4.4 -6
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Type of Equipment
Average Sound Levels
(dBA LQ at 50 feet)
Backhoe
73.6
Concrete Mixer Truck
74.8
Concrete Pump Truck
74.4
Excavator
76.7
Front End Loader
75.1
Jackhammer
81.7
Drill Rig Truck
72.2
Hydra Break Ram
80.0
Tractor
80.0
Vibratory Concrete Mixer
73.0
Flat Bed Truck
70.3
Auger Drill Rig
77.4
Mounted Impact Hammer Hoe Ram
83.3
Dozer
77.7
SOURCE: Roadway Construction Noise Model (version 1.1)
The Planning Center March 2009
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.
Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders.
Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Potential 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 and will cease after construction is completed. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to
occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and,
finally, for building construction. Heavy equipment noise can average about 80 dB(A) at 50 feet from the
source when the equipment is operating at typical loads.
A variety of noise sources and noise levels would occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project
site, over the estimated 32 -month construction program associated with the proposed project. 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
• Excavation and installation of lagging
Shotcrete shoring walls
• Install foundations
• Build concrete structure
Install plumbing, electrical, mechanical, finish exterior /interior, etc.
• Hardscape and landscape
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
It is important to note that all equipment is not generally operated continuously or used simultaneously.
The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The
noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section
10.28.040). In order to reduce potential construction noise, the following noise control factors were
considered in the preparation of the CMP.
During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate
of 3 to 4 caissons per day, including drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete.
The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or
an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of
approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There will be no pile driving during
the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the
excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower
elevations of the site.
For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors will be used within the concrete
structure. Nose will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the site. The
construction valet will manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the
same time.
In order to adequately evaluate the potential construction noise impacts for various construction activities
anticipated from the proposed project, a noise monitoring program was undertaken that characterized
noise levels associated with concrete formwork, metal stud framing, and installation of interior walls with
cast -in -place concrete (refer to Appendix F). Noise modeling was then completed for each phase of the
proposed project utilizing, where applicable, the data collected from the construction monitoring program
based on the specific project equipment and phasing schedule identified in the Construction Management
Program prepared for the project.
Phase 1 — Demolition and Excavation
Phase 1 consists of project - related demolition and excavation activities. Phase 1 would last approximately six
months and would involve varying quantities of construction vehicles. The most noise intensive activities
would occur when construction vehicles are working at -grade with the surface streets because no noise
attenuation would be provided by the walls of excavated pits as would occur during the excavation phases.
Demolition
Demolition of the existing residential structures is anticipated to take six days and would utilize a
backhoe, excavator, and loader during each of the six days. The potential noise impacts resulting from
demolition are based on the types, numbers and hours of operation each day during the demolition
activities (refer to Table 10 in Appendix F). Based on the six -day demolition schedule, noise contours
were developed and are illustrated in Exhibit 4.4 -1, which illustrates that noise from demolition equipment
would result in noise levels of 75-80 dBA Leq at the adjacent residence to the north of the site and 70-75 dBA
L,q at the residences in the immediate vicinity of the project site, before diminishing with distance, for the six -
day demolition. As shown in the Exhibit 4.4 -1, remnants of the existing buildings would provide some noise
attenuation for the residences to the northwest of the project site until they were demolished.
Dreg Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-9
Noise Level LD, eq
in dB(A)
85<
80< ;
?, < =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
55<
< =60
50< < =55
45<
< =50
®
< =45
- - - -
Site Boundary
SOURCE: The Planning Center
0
Scale (Feet)
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4-10
Exhibit 4.4 -1
Demolition Noise Contours
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Caisson Installation
Section 4.4 - Noise
Caisson placement, which would occur for up to 21 days, would occur after the buildings are demolished and
the pad is graded level. Three to four caissons would be drilled per day. This activity includes drilling, steel
placement, and filling with concrete. Construction equipment utilized for caisson emplacement includes a drill
rig, backhoe loader, concrete pump truck and concrete trucks. In addition, an air compressor and mobile
welding machine would be used when needed to splice the steel casings together. It is anticipated that 10
concrete truck loads would be necessary on a daily basis. As prescribed in the CMP, the concrete trucks
would be sequenced so that a single truck would be unloading at a time. Exhibit 4.4 -2 illustrates that noise
from caisson drilling would result in noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA Leq within the immediate vicinity of the project
site before diminishing with increasing distance during the 13 to 21 day duration of this activity. Noise levels
during this phase would be substantial due to the multiple concurrent construction vehicles operating at
grade.
Excavation
The noise analysis evaluated potential noise impacts anticipated during the three grading operations at three
levels: 50 feet, 40 feet and 28 feet. The equipment that would be used for excavating the site includes a
dozer, excavator and loader at each elevation. In addition, at the 40- and 28 -foot elevations, a ram hoe may
also be employed to facilitate excavation and grading. Exhibit 4.4 -3 illustrates the potential noise impacts.
As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels from excavation equipment would be partially attenuated due to
being partially below grade where the ridgeline of the excavated area acts as a sound barrier. Noise levels of
80 to 85 dBA Leq are expected to occur at the nearest residence to the project site, (215 Carnation Avenue).
Noise levels at the other residential uses near to the project site would experience attenuated noise levels in
the 55-65 dI3 range, due to the construction vehicles operating within the excavated area. At the 40 foot
elevation (refer to Exhibit 4.4 -4), noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area during this
excavation phase. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise
levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit
from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from
equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA
Leq. Exhibit 4.4 -5 illustrates the potential noise impacts during the grading that would occur at the 28 foot
elevation. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area. The
nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85
dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise
attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment
working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Leq.
Phases 2 and 3 — Concrete Pouring /Concrete Formwork, and Metal Stud Framing
Phase 2 involves shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks and
construction of retaining walls following excavation activities. Phase 3 would consist mainly of metal stud
framing and installation of mechanical electrical and plumbing equipment. Portions of Phases 2 and 3 would
occur concurrently and, together, they would last approximately 18 months. During Phase 3, the vehicle
elevators will be installed, allowing additional storage of construction materials. As previously discussed,
data from noise monitoring of concrete formwork and metal stud framing were used as the basis for the
modeling conducted for the proposed project.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-11
Noise Level LD, eq
in dB(A)
85< ,
80<
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
55<
< =60
50<
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
- - -- Site Boundary
SOURCE: The Planning Center
0 190
Scale (Feet)
Exhibit 4.4 -2
Caisson Drilling Noise Contours
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4 -12
Noise Level LD, eq o 190
in dB(A) Scale
85<
80<
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
55<
< =60
50<
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
— — — — Site Boundary
SOURCE: The Planning Center
Exhibit 4.4 -3
Noise Contours from Excavation (50 Feet msQ
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4 -13
Noise Level LD, eq
in dB(A)
85<
80< F<.
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
55< < =60
50<
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
- - - -
Site Boundary
SOURCE: The Planning Center
0 190
Scale (Feet)
Exhibit 4.4 -4
Noise contours from Excavation (40 Feet msl)
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aene PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4 -14
0 190
Noise Level LID, eq Scale (Feet)
in dB(A)
85<
80<
1
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60< "
< =65
55<
< =60
50 <
1
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
- - - - Site Boundary
SOURCE: The Planning Center
Exhibit 4.4 -5
Noise Contours from Excavation (28 Feet msl)
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4 -15
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
Concrete Pouring
Concrete pouring is required to construct the exterior walls and floors of the proposed structure and would
occur for approximately three to five days during the construction process. Approximately 20 to 25 cement
trucks would come to the site each day during the 12 concrete pouring events; however, no more than one
truck at a time would be permitted on Carnation Avenue. In addition to the concrete trucks, this activity would
also require the use of a concrete pumper and concrete vibrator (hand tool). The concrete pour work could
occur concurrently with the metal stud work. Noise generated from metal stud work was included with the
noise generated with equipment associated with the concrete pouring. As shown Exhibit 4.4 -6, noise would
occur primarily from the concrete truck and the concrete pumper truck along Carnation Avenue. Noise levels
at the closest residences to these two trucks would be exposed to noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA Ley during
each day of concrete pouring.
Concrete Formwork and Metal Study Framing
Building construction would commence after the excavation /grading phase. The construction of the building
for each floor is initiated by developing the form and then pouring the concrete floor first. After the concrete
floor has cured, the exterior walls would be formed and also cast in place with concrete. At the time the forms
for the exterior walls are being erected, metal stud framing for the interior walls would be constructed
concurrently on the floor below where the forms are being constructed. Noise generated by the metal stud
framing would be attenuated by the concrete exterior walls. The concrete formwork and metal stud framing
would occur for approximately a year and a half. Integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems and interior walls would start from the lowest level and continue on to the upper levels. SoundPlan
modeling graphics were prepared showing interior wall construction occurring concurrently with preparation of
the forms prior to pouring concrete. Equipment that would be utilized during these construction activities
includes compressors, hand tools, plasma cutters, roto hammers, shot pin applicators, and small stationary
power tools.
Exhibit 4.4 -7 shows interior wall construction and form work below grade. As indicated in that exhibit, noise
levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the first and second floors,
respectively would result in noise levels of 55 -60 dBA Ley at the nearest residences to the south of the
projects site and 70 -75 dBA Ley at the nearest residence to the north of the site. The highest noise levels
experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA Le, or less. Exhibit 4.4 -8 shows the same
type of work occurring above grade so that noise levels could be depicted with and without the noise
attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Concrete formwork for the fourth floor and metal stud framing
for the third floor would occur for approximately 30 days. Construction activities for this stage are similar to
the above for the formwork and interior metal framing for the first floor with the exception that the activities
would occur roughly 10 feet above Carnation Avenue and the building footprint is smaller. It is estimated that
the same number of workers and tools, and hours of operation would occur for this activity as shown in Table
16. Noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the fourth and third floors,
respectively, would result in noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA Ley at the nearest residences to the north and 60 to
65 dBA Leq south of the projects site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away
would be 60 -65 dBA Ley or less and would diminish with distance and intervening structures.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-16
Noise Level LD, eq
in dB(A)
85<
80<
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
55<
< =60
50<
1
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
- - - - Site Boundary
SOURCE: The Planning Center
0 190
Scale (Feet)
Exhibit 4.4 -6
Concrete Pouring Noise Contours
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4-17
Noise Level eq o tso
in dB(A) Scal
85<
80<
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
55<
< =60
50<
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
- - -- Site Boundary Exhibit 4.4 -7
First Floor Metal Stud Framing /Second Floor concrete Formwork
SOURCE: The Planning Center
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.4-16
Noise Level LD, eq 0 19e
in dB(A) Scale (Feet)
85<
80<
< =85
75<
< =80
70<
< =75
65<
< =70
60<
< =65
50<
< =55
45<
< =50
< =45
- - — — Site Boundary Exhibit 4.4 -8
Third Floor Metal Stud Framing /Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork
SOURCE: The Planning Center
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 4.419
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Phase 4 — Finishing Activities
4.4 - Noise
The final construction phase would include the application of the interior and exterior finishes in window and
door installation occurring for a period of seven months. Cabinetry built off -site, countertops, and finish
materials would be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials,
photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster would begin. Landscaping and final fire suppression systems
as well as passenger elevator installations would complete the structure. Noise levels for this phase were
assumed to be comparable to noise generated during the metal stud framing phase. Noise generated during
this phase would generally occur in the interior of the structure with interior and exterior walls providing noise
attenuation from the activities. Noise would generally consist of use of electric screwdrivers, compressors and
infrequent use of electric saws. Exterior work will involve tile cutting, which would occur indoors and brought
to the exterior for installation as well as the use of a plaster sprayer for a period of a week.
The proposed project involves the construction of the proposed Aerie residential building as well as the
replacement of the existing docks. The noise and vibration generated by the construction of the docks was
evaluated in a separate noise study conducted by Wieland Acoustics Incorporated. Construction of the
docks is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2012 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days. Dock
construction is anticipated to occur concurrently with the construction of the 4`h floor interior walls and roof.
The highest noise level associated with dock work is associated with the drilling phase, which results in 88
dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest noise sensitive uses to the docks are 101 Bayside Place and 2495
Ocean Boulevard. Table 4.4 -7 summarizes the noise levels associated with each activity as well as the
combined noise levels from both dock and building construction activities. The combined noise levels are
logarithmically summed at the nearest noise sensitive uses. As shown in this Table 4.4 -7, noise levels would
increase by 1.5 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 0.5 dB at 2495 Ocean Boulevard.
Table 4.4 -7
Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA)
Location
Dock
Drilling Noise
Building
Construction Noise
Combined Dock
and Building Noise
101 Bayside Place
71
67
72.5
2495 Ocean Boulevard
68
59
68.5
SOURCE: The Planning Center March 2009
Summary of Noise Impacts
As shown by the noise contours of the construction activities (refer to Exhibits 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -8, noise
levels associated with the proposed project's construction would vary substantially depending on the number
and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels
for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge
of the project site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period,
as shown in Exhibit 4.4 -9. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and
diminish beyond 100 feet. This exhibit illustrates the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of
construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the
concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside
substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to
the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -20
d
c
U
c
A
a
iL
0
0
U)
U
ct: m
m
m
m �
E30 N
mZ� v
L6
WN
�a
m
D
Q1
N
?
0
v
E
CL
v�
�
N
Y
L
cI
LO
0
x
W
m
_N
y
Z
LL
N
O
r
Y
Exterior
Finishing
Work
L
CD
N
f
�
U
114th
0
Windows,
Doors,
& Utilities
i
o
-k
i4th Floor
Form Work
3rd Metal
Framing (Interior
Walls)
'K
�
i
cv
*
3rd
2nd
Floor Form
Metal Framing
Work
(Interior Walls)
2nd Floor
Form Work
1st Metal
Framing
(Interior Walls)
0
*
1st Floor
Form
Work
Basement
Metal
Framing
(Interior
Walls)
`r
Basement
Form
Work
SubBasement
Work Metal
Framing
(Interior
Walls)
m
M
Sub Basement
K
Form Work
N
O
Bracing j
-
C
O
L
X O
W
T
N
N —
d
U �
� o
o
771
777
w
I Demolition, Caisson
11
Drilling
o
I
0
0 M
m m
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
.--
be-1 tl8P
d
c
U
c
A
a
iL
0
0
U)
U
ct: m
m
m
m �
E30 N
mZ� v
L6
WN
�a
m
D
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the site and have direct view of the
construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would
occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by
construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the Federal Highway
Administration's Road Construction Noise Model. Construction vehicles would not be used during these
phases, with the exception of building material deliveries and concrete pouring when short periods of
substantial noise exposure would occur. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the
interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a
concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The
finish work would also be done with hand tools and various electric saws and related equipment. As
explained above, noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable
to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and
be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish
work would also be done with hand tools.
The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA Le) in the vicinity of the project
site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles
results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this
level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Laq above ambient background noise and would last
approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the
noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent
to the project site with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for
a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the
excavated walls provide less attenuation or no attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise
levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA L. at 100 feet from the construction of the
interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background
noise. As explained above, interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud
work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last
approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background
noise. Noise levels are most intensive when construction vehicles are necessary during the demolition,
caisson drilling and excavation phases. The majority of the construction duration involves building
construction that involves less noise intensive activities due to the use of hand tools (electric screw drivers,
compressors, electric saws, etc.).
Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and the periodic level of noise from the
period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from project - related construction activities at the nearby
residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from project related construction activities.
Construction Vibration
Construction Vibration Annoyance
Structure
Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on
buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, and receptor
building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration
levels, to perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations
from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the perceptible
ranges in buildings close to a construction site.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -22
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest
vibration sensitive uses. Using the FTA criteria (Table 4.4-4 above), vibration which is "barely felt' is not
deemed significant. Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction
activities, average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements which are ' %If'
are considered potentially significant.
The analysis of potential short-term vibration impacts was evaluated at both the closest distance that
would occur as well as the average distance. The average distance assumed the vibrations would
emanate from the center of the project site at an average distance of 80 feet from the project site
boundary. The impact on the nearest vibration sensitive use (215 Carnation Avenue) was conservatively
assumed to occur at the 215 Carnation property line. As a result, this analysis provides the maximum
levels of vibration occurring at the outdoor living space located on the 215 Carnation Avenue property
line. However, because construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site,
construction vibration was also assessed at the center of the project site (80 feet from the 215 Carnation
Avenue property boundary) to obtain the average vibration levels that would be experienced by sensitive
receptors the majority of the time. Table 4.4 -8 lists the maximum and average vibration source levels for
construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site for the off -site residential receptors and
at the closest residential uses. As shown in this table, vibration levels generated by the construction
vehicles during the caisson drilling and excavation with a ram hoe were found to exceed the FTA's
perceptibility criteria for residential uses. Potential short-term impacts from vibration induced annoyance
may occur at other residences within 50 feet of the most vibration intensive construction equipment.
Those phases that do not involve heavy construction equipment use were not modeled because hand
tools do not generate perceptible levels of ground vibration. The residential uses being affected include
only those residences immediately to the northeast and south of the project site.
Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the
nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities
is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and
duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria (Table 4.4 -4 above) vibration which is "barely
felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appendix G of the CEQA
guidelines. The word "excessive' is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is
usual, proper, necessary, or normal:' If something is "barely felt,' it cannot reasonably be considered
"excessive:" Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction
activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is
average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt" The FTA
has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt' or readily perceived.
In addition to the perceptibility criterion, the frequency of occurrence of vibration generating activities must
be considered in determining what constitutes "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines.
Loaded trucks have the potential to generate vibration as they vehicles travel down the street. However,
project related truck trips will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as
they pass in front of residences. Based on this Fleeting exposure, loaded trucks would not result in
significant vibration impacts for annoyance.
A third criterion for vibration induced annoyance is the duration of vibration intensive construction
activities. Construction activities that involve perceptible vibration or high frequency in a day may
nevertheless be considered to have less than significant vibration generated annoyance impacts if the
duration of construction is short. The project's demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases have
the most potential for generating vibration at vibration sensitive residential uses. Based on the
Construction Schedule attached to the Construction Management Plan, it is anticipated that there are
approximately 109 total work days associated with these activities. However, vibration intensive
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-23
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
construction activities would not exceed the "felt" vibration level of 84 VdB when construction equipment
is operated 35 feet or more feet away from sensitive uses. The following represents the time period for
during which demolition, caisson drilling and excavation would occur within 35 feet of vibration sensitive
uses.
Demolition — 1.5 days
Caisson Drilling — 6.5 days
Excavation — 17 days
The total days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt" level
is therefore approximately 25 work days.
The last criterion considered in assessing vibration impacts is the time of occurrence. Residential uses
are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction
activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time - restricted by Municipal Code Section
10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00
AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays
and any federal holidays.
The assessment of the potential for project related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes
the four criteria previously described above: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence
and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities
would, in some instances as indicated in Table 4.4 -8, be "felt' under FTA criteria and could occur
frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration -
sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent,
potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact.
Table 4.4-8
Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences
(Vibration Annoyance)
Construction Activity
Maximum
Vibration
Levels
VdB) 2
Average
Vibration
Levels Vd8' 3
Exceeds
Perceptibility
Criteria?
( "Felt" per Table
7: 84 Vd8 s1
Demolition
Excavator Small bulldozer
65
43
No
Backhoe Loader Small bulldozer
65
43
No
Loaded trucks
86
71
Yes
Caisson Drillin
Caisson Drill
96
72
Yes
Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer
67
43
No
Pumper
47
43
No
Loaded trucks
86
71
Yes
Excavation to 50 Feet NAVD88
Large bulldozer
96
72
as
Excavator Small bulldozer
67
43
No
Loader Small bulldozer
67
43
No
Loaded trucks
86
71
Yes
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -24
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration
The FTA criterion for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood - framed structures is 0.2 inch per
second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage
(superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the
structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be
used at the project site at off -site receptors.
As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the
components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among
other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots
against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities
necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing
structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if
requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of
all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215
Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any
construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to
occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic
damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for
the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of
expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -25
Exceeds
Maximum
Perceptibility
Vibration
Average
Criteria?
Levels
Vibration
( "Felt' per Table
Construction Activity
VdB)2
Levels (VdB)',3
7: 84(VdB)"
Excavation to 40 Feet NAVD88
Large bulldozer
96
72
Yes
Ram Hoe
96
72
Yes
Loader Small bulldozer
67
43
No
Excavator Small bulldozer)'
67
43
No
Loaded trucks
86
71
Yes
Excavation to 28 Feet NAVD88
Large bulldozer
93
72
Yes
Excavator Small bulldozer 1
64
43
No
Loader Small bulldozer
64
43
No
Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes
Concrete Pours
Pumper
75
71
No
Concrete Mixer
75
71
No
'Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration
levels generated by a small bulldozer.
2 A the closest distance from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in
operation to the nearest structure.
3 A an average distance (center of site to nearest structure) from where any large or small
off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure.
SOURCE: Based on methodology from FTA 2006.
Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration
The FTA criterion for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood - framed structures is 0.2 inch per
second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage
(superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the
structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be
used at the project site at off -site receptors.
As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the
components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among
other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots
against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities
necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing
structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if
requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of
all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215
Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any
construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to
occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic
damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for
the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of
expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -25
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
part of the Project Description, the evaluation of potential cosmetic damage from vibration considers
activities required by the CMP to be incorporated within the project itself.
Implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage
impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided ad reflected
in Table 4.4 -9. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced
cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation.
Table 4.4 -9
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure
(Cosmetic Damage Assessment)
Off -Site Receptors
Maximum RMS
velocit�l
In /sec z
FTA Criteria
(inlsec)
Exceeds FTA Criteria?
Demolition
Excavator Small bulldozer
0.010
0.2
No
Backhoe Loader Small bulldozer
0.010
0.2
No
Loaded trucks
0.076
1 0.2
No
Caisson Drilling
Caisson Drill
0.412
0.2
Yes
Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer
0.008
0.2
No
Pumper
1 0.012
0.2
No
Loaded trucks
1 0.076
0.2
No
Excavation to 50 Feet
NAVD88
Large bulldozer
0.412
0.2
Yes
Excavator Small bulldozer
0.014
0.2
No
Loader Small bulldozer
0.003
0.2
No
Loaded trucks
0.076
0.2
No
Excavation to 40Feet NAVD88
Large bulldozer
0.412
0.2
Yes
Ram Hoe
0.412
0.2
Yes
Loader Small bulldozerF
0.014
0.2
No
Excavator Small bulldozer
0.014
0.2
No
Loaded trucks
0.076
0.2
No
Excavation to 28 Feet
NAVD88
Large bulldozer
0.008
0.2
No
Ram Hoe
0.008
0.2
No
Loader Small bulldozer
0.008
0.2
No
Excavator Small bulldozer
0.008
0.2
No
Loaded trucks
0.076
0.2
No
Concrete Pour
Pumper
0.164
0.2
No
Concrete Mixer
0.076
0.2
No
NOTE: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microinch /second.
NA: Not Applicable
' At a distance of 10 feet from construction area to nearest residences to the east.
2 Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated
by a small bulldozer.
SOURCE: Based on methodology from FTA 2006.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4 -26
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
Dock
Based on published information, typical drilling produces the peak particle vibration (PPV) of 0.089
inches /second at a distance of 25 feet. Table 4.4 -10 provides a comparison of the estimated construction
vibration levels to the maximum ambient vibration levels monitored at the nearby properties.
Table 4.4 -10
Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels
Location Description
Maximum Ambient
Vibration Level
Estimated Construction
Vibration Level
Cosmetic Damage
(PPV
Nuisance
(VdB)
Rear Patio — 101 Ba side Place
0.00128 in /sec
0.02 in /sec
70 VdB 90'
Pool Area — 2495 Ocean Blvd
0.00086 in /sec
0.01 in /sec
62 VdB @ 175'
Rear Patio — 2282 Channel Rd
0.00298 in /sec
0.002 in /sec
42 VdB 785'
Rear Patio — 2222 Channel Rd
0.00121 in /sec
0.002 in /sec
44 VdB 675'
SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics March 12, 2009
The human annoyance and cosmetic damage criteria for vibration developed by the FTA were
summarized in Table 4.4 -8 and Table 4.4 -9, respectively. As indicated in Table 4.4 -10, 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 for either annoyance or cosmetic damage. As a
result, no significant vibration impacts are anticipated as a result of dock construction.
4.4.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts
Based on the ambient noise levels identified in Table 4.4 -3, 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 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 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 Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 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.
Noise Element
Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with
the applicable policies adopted with the Noise Element. As revealed in the analysis presented in that table,
the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Noise Element.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-27
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Aircraft Noise
Section 4.4 - Noise
The proposed project is not located within the limits of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for
John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the residential use would not be exposed to significant noise
levels associated with that commercial aviation facility. The County of Orange Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) uses the current AELUP for JWA as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise
impact from JWA. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours,
where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact' (i.e., an impact that would
require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2:' The AELUP
also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the
project site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise impacts from aircraft activities
would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
4.4.5 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.4-1 Noise levels associated with construction equipment will result in periodic
substantial increases above ambient noise levels during the construction phase
anticipated for the proposed project.
MM 4.4 -1a All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less
effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
MM 4.4 -1 b The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to
minimize noise emissions.
MM 4.4 -1c The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators,
compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible.
MM 4.4 -1d The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the
owner's authorized representative on -site.
MM 4.4 -1 e The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with
a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds
per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the perimeter
of the construction area proximate to residential uses. This does not include the side
facing the harbor channel due to the noise attenuation provided by the buffer distance
between the construction noise and harbor residences. The temporary sound blankets or
plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected,
they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no
perforations or gaps between the panels.
MM 4.4 -1f The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever
feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise
than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to
avoid on -site cutting.
MM 4.4 -1g The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This
includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary
machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting,
within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-28
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise
4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Construction Noise
Implementation of the construction noise reduction measures prescribed in the CMP and the mitigation
measures Section 4.4.5 would attenuate noise to the maximum extent feasible. Temporary sound blankets
would reduce noise levels by 5 dBA from construction activities whose line of sight is blocked by the blankets
(FTA 2006). Enclosures have the potential to reduce noise levels by up to 8 dB. Working within a walled
structure provides 5 dB of attenuation. With the implementation of the noise mitigation measures, noise from
construction activities would be reduced. However, construction activities would still result in substantial
increases above the ambient noise environment. The project would need to be in compliance with City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, which limits construction - related noise levels to
weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Compliance with the Municipal Code would limit noise from construction activities to the
least sensitive portions of the day. However, because of the magnitude of noise generated during the
phases that involve construction vehicle use, the proximity of the noise sensitive of uses, as well as the
duration of the construction period, project - related construction noise would result in an unavoidable
short-term significant impact.
Construction Vibration
Annoyance from vibration generated by project - related construction activities were found to result in less than
significant impacts. Similarly, implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration -
induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked
dozer are avoided. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration -
induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.4-29
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.5 AESTHETICS
Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
The aesthetic quality of Aerie property is determined by its visual character, consisting of elements such
as natural and man -made features, elevations and topography, and prominent views of and from the site.
In addition, surrounding urban and natural features comprise the visual setting within which the project
site takes on a given degree of importance.
Both natural and artificial landscape features contribute to perceived visual images and the aesthetic
value of a view. The aesthetic value of a site or feature may be influenced by geologic, hydrologic,
botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features associated with it. Visual images and their perceived
visual quality can vary substantially by season and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and elements
that comprise the viewscape change. Judgments of visual quality must also be made based on a
regional frame of reference, since the same landform or visual resource in different geographic areas
could have different visual resource quality and sensitivity in each setting. For example, a small hill may
be a significant visual element on a flat landscape but may have very little significance in mountainous
terrain.
Evaluating a project's landscape changes and its effects on visual quality is often seen as a highly
subjective matter, open to many interpretations and personal preferences. However, a widely diverse
body of knowledge and study of the subject of natural and urban aesthetics has led to coherent and
systematic methods of visual impact analysis. In the absence of a methodology prescribed by the City of
Newport Beach, this analysis utilizes a series of visual simulations constructed for the proposed project that
illustrate the post - development characteristics of the proposed project. A qualitative, descriptive approach is
employed to describe and evaluate the visual resources of the subject site and proposed development. The
existing visual setting in and around the subject property is defined by on -site and off -site features and the
various views from particular vantage points (i.e., "viewsheds ") that encompass those features. The on -site
and off -site aesthetic character consists of urban and natural elements, and all occur within the context of a
variety of urban land uses, including single - family attached and detached residential development located
within the immediate vicinity of the subject property and adjacent roadways. A series of visual simulations
has been prepared and serve as the basis for determining the potential impacts of the proposed project on
the aesthetic character of the area.
Visual Analysis Two -Point Perspective Methodology
SoftMirage /BP Media Group, Inc., created a series of visual simulations from several vantages in the project
area that are based on a Two -Point Perspective Methodology (refer to Appendix G). Perspective shows
depth in an image or photograph based on the human eye and in this case, for the visual simulations, by a
camera. The distance, height, and angle of the camera can change the orientation of whatever object is in
focus. The two -point perspective is a common way to view photos or renderings with a great degree of
accuracy because two -point perspectives rely on the use of accurate three - dimensional angles, while holding
onto vertical lines to ensure design accuracy. In this method of creating the visual simulations, the camera is
often placed looking on a comer of the focus object to better show at least two sides of the object. This is
the preferred viewing angle for people when compared to the three -point perspective, which places the
viewer seemingly substantially above the object looking down or below the object looking up. Although the
simulations presented in this section are visually accurate, it is important to note that it is virtually impossible
to re- create an image with absolute accuracy due to several variables that affect the accuracy.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.5.1 Existing Conditions
Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
Refer to Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) for a discussion of on- and off -site visual character and off -site
views.
Natural Resources Element
As previously indicated, Figure NR3 in the Natural Resources Element identifies Ocean Boulevard in the
vicinity of the subject property as a "Coastal View Road." In addition, the corner of Ocean Boulevard and
Carnation Avenue and Begonia Park are identified as a "Public View Point" The City has adopted
several goals and policies intended to preserve and /or enhance the visual resources within Newport
Beach. As a result, future development that may affect the Coastal View Roads and /or Public View
Points must adhere to the adopted applicable policies and programs.
4.5.2 Significance Criteria
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of
the following occurs as a result of project implementation.
The proposed project will be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if:
The project has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
4.5.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.5.1 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-
site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are
permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak"
type fixtures are not permitted.
SC 4.5 -2 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant
shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division
to confirm control of light and glare.
SC 4.5 -3 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; 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.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5-2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
4.5.4 Potential Impacts
4.5.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project will result in site preparation (e.g., grading, etc.) and construction
activities that could have some short-term effects, which would temporarily change the character of the
area; however, it is important to note that these potential effects are similar to those which are typical of
similar development projects in the City that undergo development and redevelopment. The effects of
construction will be visible during the anticipated 32 -month construction phase. Other effects during the
initial phase of development include dust generation associated with site grading and construction of the
new structures that are proposed for the subject property. Construction staging areas, storage of
equipment and supplies, and related activities will contribute to a generally "disturbed" condition, which
may be perceived as a potential visual impact. However, while these activities may be unsightly, they are
not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and will cease upon completion
of the proposed construction program. Nonetheless, a measure has been recommended to locate
staging areas away from areas most visible to the surrounding development, if feasible.
4.5.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts
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. Newport Bay in the vicinity of the project site is
characterized by boat docks ancillary to abutting single- and multiple - family residential uses.
Development existing along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue extends down the bluff face. The
north - facing 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 (i.e., basement and sub - basement) 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 of the proposed residential structure 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.
View Corridors
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 will not obstruct existing public views of the bay and coastline from the
Public View Point due to its location. 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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
maintained but it will also be expanded by 76 percent, from 25 degrees to 44 degrees (refer to the Exhibit
4.5 -1). 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
development to the south. Views to the west from Ocean Boulevard will also be enhanced as a result of
the increased distance between buildings. In addition, a northern view corridor will also be created where
one does not currently exist.
Visual Simulations
Several visual simulations were created based on the Two-Point Methodology previously described. The
purpose of the visual simulations is to provide a comparison of the existing visual /aesthetic character of the
area to that of the project after the site is redeveloped as proposed. The locations from which the simulations
have been created are illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -2. As indicated in that exhibit, several locations were selected
from Begonia Park and the nearby area to illustrate the project's effect on the view corridor from the park to
the harbor and ocean to the west. Other visual simulations were also created from locations in the immediate
vicinity of the project site (e.g., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue) to reflect the project's aesthetic
character and potential effect of development on views to the west from those vantages. In addition, views
from several locations from inside the harbor illustrate the change in character associated with the proposed
project and the effect of the proposed changes, including the proposed dock, from the west. The following
discussion summarizes each of the simulations and describes the changes resulting from project
implementation.
Simulation V01— Bayside Drive Beach (Exhibit 4.5 -3)
As indicated in this view from Bayside Drive Beach (approximately 2,000 northwest of the subject site), views
of the site are in the background of the photograph. As noted in this simulation, residential development
extends along nearly the entire length of the bluff, including the subject property. However, implementation of
the proposed project will not significantly change the visual character of the area within which the project is
located. The most noticeable change to the vista when viewed from the vantage from Bayside Drive Beach
is the "curvilinear' design of the proposed residential structure, which allows the building to conform to the
bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. Views of the
portion of the bluff located below the proposed development will retain the existing topographic character.
The proposed dock facility cannot be seen from Bayside Drive Beach because the intervening pier that
extends into the harbor north of the beach location.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5-4
3Atl NOI1tlNW7 LOC-IOL \ �/
31tl3V
I�
I
i
r J o L—JI
IL
1 I I
I I
% z I
i n4 I I
kD 0�1
Z w Y
U Q
Q Q
w W Qp�p ®�
F� pm>mo
X(L aF - <F<>
lu
ONmOWrQO
'o 'o N-i �m
lu
? Flu
O L IL
WO
O J
Q
J
9
♦O75 �n
i
Q
Z
0 0
s �
z
d
a
d
>°
U�
IL
i
U
NV370
\ \ I
\
1VQm /
J
0
,a)
U 3
. C
et d
� a
t a
X
W
U
t *7
0
0
0
:+
3
d
d
m
0
X
W
m
L
Q
z
c
d
O
m`
ui
U
0
0
U)
CU
-
of
ct:0
m
mT
ip Z N
V
.e o
W �`+
Ca
O _
m
N Q.
N �
y
�Y
s c
x
w
Y
E
Vi
U)
N_
m
OI
A
0
O
N
W
U
K
O
N
U
t .
of
pU
0 W
co
R �po
al rn
w2�
N �
So
co
W¢
�a
� C
0
Q
RAY i X18 r
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
{
,N� _.•. _ �� -� � � yr` ' -5.+
Exhibit 4.5 -3
Visual Simulation V01 - Bayside Drive Beach
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Simulation V02 — Channel Road Beach (Exhibit 4.5 -4)
Section 4.5- Aesthetics
The Channel Road Beach location vantage is located on the Balboa Peninsula, approximately 1,300 feet
west of the site. As revealed in this visual simulation, the change in the character of the site is apparent when
viewed from this location. The large apartment structure that currently exists on the site, which is dominated
by sharp vertical and horizontal features, will be replaced by a similarly large structure; however, the
proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to "fit' the bluff by eliminating the sharp
angles and replacing them with a curvilinear facade that conforms to the existing bluff feature. In addition, the
proposed building also appears more subdued as a result of the darker color proposed. Although the
proposed multiple - family structure would block the view of the red roof of the existing residence located to the
rear when the project is completed, the tops of the trees would remain visible. In addition, more existing
development on the east side of Ocean Boulevard can be seen because of the greater building setback from
the southern property boundary. As identified above in Simulation V01, views of the portion of the bluff
located below the proposed development will retain the existing topographic character. The proposed
expanded dock facility can be seen below the bluff from the Channel Road Beach location. Although the
larger rock outcroppings will remain visible, the rock features in front of the small cove would not be seen
from this vantage because the dock, when occupied by one or more boats, would obscure some or all of the
rocky features.
Simulation V03 — Corner Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard (Exhibit 4.5 -5)
The view of the site from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard illustrates the existing apartment building
and the proposed multiple - family structure. As can be seen, views of the existing structure are dominated by
the flat roof features of the and angular forms that dominate the multiple - family residential structure, which
was built in 1948. In particular, the wide, open carport that fronts along Carnation Avenue reveals the
automobiles that are parked in the structure at ground level. An ocean view exists between the existing
apartment building on the site and the adjacent residence that fronts on Ocean Avenue. The area on Ocean
Boulevard between the subject property and the property to the south is designated as a Public View Point.
The post - development simulation illustrates the change in character that will occur. In particular, the features
of the proposed multiple - family residential building will be curvilinear. Although the proposed structure will be
higher than the existing apartment building, the character of the building will change dramatically, and will be
characterized by a fagade that features a combination of exterior plaster and stone. The increased in building
height would not adversely affect any public view. In addition, parking will not be visible when the building is
viewed from the street; all parking will be accommodated below grade within the building. Landscaping will
be integrated into the design to soften the building mass. As previously indicated, a Public View Point is
located on Ocean Boulevard south of Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will enhance the view from
the designated view location. The view window at this location will be expanded (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -1) by 76
percent (i.e., from approximately 25 degrees to about 44 degrees).
Simulation VO4 — Ocean Boulevard View Corridor (Exhibit 4.5 -6)
As previously indicated, Ocean Boulevard is designated as a "Coastal View Road" in the City's Natural
Resource Element (refer to Figure NR3). Exhibit 4.5 -6 illustrates the view of the site looking north from a
location south of the site on Ocean Boulevard. The open nature of the carport that dominates the lower level
of the existing structure is highly visible from this vantage. The proposed building elevation reflects a modern
character in contrast to the existing development. Although the proposed residential structure will be higher
than the existing apartment building, it will not exceed the permitted building height. Project implementation
will also result in a wider northerly view window when viewed from the south. In addition, the existing
overhead utility pole and overhead lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be
undergrounded, which will also improve the aesthetic character of the area. Finally, a public bench and
drinking fountain will be located in the vicinity of the Carnation Avenue Public View Point to accommodate
public access to the view location.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5 -8
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 4.5 -4
Visual Simulation V02 - Channel Road Beach
Z495
Exhibit 4.5-5
Visual Simulation V03 - Carnation Avenue/ Ocean Boulevard
1L
11�
1
r
__ �qvi
AR,
14 p (J
A r.
J
J
Exhibit 4.5 -6
Visual Simulation VO4- Ocean Boulevard View Corridor
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
Simulation V08 — Carnation Avenue (Exhibit 4.5-7)
The view from Carnation Avenue looking west to the ocean illustrates that changes that would occur with the
implementation of the proposed project. Exhibit 4.5 -7 illustrates the proposed multiple family structure and
the relationship of that new structure to the existing development. Redevelopment of the site with the
proposed multiple - family residential structure will result in the appearance of the larger and taller structure in
the foreground than currently exists, adjacent to the existing residence east of the site on Carnation Avenue.
The existing landscaping at the eastern corner of the lot would be replaced and the proposed structure would
dominate the foreground from this vantage. While a larger building will be introduced, the structure would not
exceed the building height limitations prescribed for the zoning district. The existing view to the ocean to the
west would be preserved and enhanced. In addition, as previously indicated, the overhead utilities that exist
within the parkway on the south side of Carnation Avenue would be undergrounded, thus eliminating the
utility features that extend vertically and horizontally within the viewshed. The elimination of these features
would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood.
Simulation V09 — Ocean Boulevard (Exhibit 4.5 -8)
This visual simulation illustrates the proposed project in context with the nearby residential development
existing in the Corona del Mar neighborhood. As can be seen in Exhibit 4.5 -8 and in other simulations of the
project environs, a variety of architectural styles is present in the area. When compared to the existing
apartment building, which was designed and constructed in 1948, the proposed project introduces a modem
architectural style. The various structural and landscape elements integrated into the proposed structure are
intended to break up the mass and the new building. The overhead utility pole previously identified on
Carnation Avenue, which can be seen in the background, will be eliminated. In addition, the building setback
at the south end of the subject property has been increased to expand the existing view corridor between the
subject property and that to the south. Consequently, a wider view between those structures would result,
which would allow for and expanded view to the north from this view location.
Begonia Park Visual Simulations
Three visual simulations were created from vantages within Begonia Park, including one from the lower
bench within the park, a simulation from the park's upper bench, and one from the northern limits of the park
near the comer of Begonia Avenue and First Avenue. Visual Simulation V05 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -9) illustrates
the view from the lower bench situated on Begonia Park north of the site. As can be seen, from this vantage,
the harbor and ocean to the west are clearly visible from this location. The proposed multiple - family
residential structure and associated landscaping will extend outward onto the bluff and encroach slightly into
the viewshed beyond the limits of the existing apartment building and single - family residence that currently
occupy the site. However, only a small portion of the ocean view at the horizon would be affected by the
proposed project from the lower bench of Begonia Park; no portion of the harbor visible from this location
would be affected by the proposed project.
The view of the site from the upper bench of Begonia Park (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -10) reveals a similar view as
that illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -9. However, from this location within the park, it is apparent that site
development would extend outward onto the north face of the bluff, affecting a small area of the ocean view
at the horizon, similar to that in Exhibit 4.5 -9. Similar to the lower bench, no portion of the harbor view would
be affected.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Cb'S{i
N e
i
Exhibit 4.5 -7
Visual Simulation V08 - Carnation Avenue
C
I A ..
�I fill
-- - - - Ilk -
Exhibit 4.5 -8
Visual Simulation V09 - Ocean Boulevard
r ITI
ill ! Fi
1 -1.
r
ww" t
\ a
II PROJECT SITE
_ I----I►I
PROJECT SITE
IV
11
`3
w
w
Exhibit 4.5-9
Visual Simulation V05 - Begonia Park - Lower Bench
w
PROJECT SITE
I
W
PROJECT SITE
I
'4 •
� I? a
? P
Exhibit 4.5-10
Visual Simulation V06 - Begonia Park - Upper Bench
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
The final visual simulation of the proposed project (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -11) from Begonia Park reveals that
although the northerly encroachment of the multiple- family residential structure into the viewshed will occur,
similar to that in Exhibit 4.5 -10, the effect on this view will be minimal. Only a small portion of the ocean at
the horizon in the background would be eliminated from view and the view of the harbor is not reduced;
however, this change would not be significant because it represents a nearly indistinguishable increment of
the total viewshed and, in particular, the ocean view.
In addition to the three visuar simulations from Begonia Park; a fourth'simulation was generated to illustrate
the potential visual impacts associated with the project. Visual Simulation V16 — Begonia and Pacific (refer to
Exhibit 4.5 -12), illustrates the southerly view from this vantage. The story poles that have been erected are
intended to reflect the building envelope of the proposed project at 2333 Pacific Avenue, which is currently an
undeveloped property. As can be seen in this visual simulation, construction of a residential project at the
Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view from this
vantage. As a result, the proposed Aerie project would not significantly impact the viewshed from any of the
four locations within or near Begonia Park.
Harbor Near - Surface Level View Simulations
Several visual simulations have been created, which look toward the proposed blufftop project and docks and
cove below the bluff to provide a comparison of the existing visual character of the site from the harbor when
viewed from the water surface (e.g., paddling in a kayak in the harbor). Visual Simulation V10 — Kayak 1
(refer to Exhibit 4.5 -13) illustrates the changes anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.
From this vantage in the harbor just south of the proposed project site, the differences in visual character
relate mostly to the bluff development. The proposed multiple - family residential structure will be stepped
back from its base as it rises above the bluff. While slightly higher than the existing structure, the curvilinear
features combined with the colors used for facade and roof /deck features allow the proposed structure to
conform to the existing topographic features when compared to the existing apartment building (and adjacent
large single - family residence to the south), which is characterized by a tall vertical mass rising from the bluff
face and no significant landscape features. The man -made elements (e.g., concrete remnants, drainage
pipes, etc.), which tend to degrade the aesthetic quality of the bluff, will be removed. The bluff face below the
proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. No significant visual
impacts would occur to the cove or the natural features below the bluff. As indicated in this exhibit, the
proposed dock facilities would not affect existing views to the cove. The larger dock feature, when viewed
from this location within the harbor, would add additional docks and boats in the harbor, which is
characterized by similar features north and south of the property.
Visual Simulation V11 — Kayak 2 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -14) provides a view from just beyond the proposed boat
dock facility looking directly at the proposed multiple - family residential development. As indicated in this
visual simulation, the proposed docks, when occupied by boats, would dominate the foreground view;
however, the main features of both the bluff and the rocks features below would remain within view of
kayakers or others boating in the harbor. The proposed structure has been designed to conform to the bluff
with both colors and landscaping and the mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two
main structural elements. The proposed structure would extend farther to the north, allowing for the wider
view window to the south, between the proposed structure and the existing single - family residence to the
south. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -13, the vertical elements of the existing structure have been eliminated to
create a more topographically compatible effect.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Cb3I1
Met
1
_. ti.•.r •��D a 'O��ti_,�i- � ��••
--
i �? Aj
.Yp }
1 I
R
rfJ
K
.Yp }
1 I
R
PROJECT SITE
I.* -------�I
PROJECT SITE
1.* --------- 00 1
i
'/r
F
robES
X9991
ll
Exhibit 4.5-12
Visual Simulation V16 - Begonia & Pacific
Ttt
Fx TA'SF,A
w .
F,x T-t'SFA
Exhibit 4.5 -13
Visual Simulation V10 - Kayak 1
v -f If'• JL
MAWL-
1L °�.n, /' • 3 SST[ ' • Yom* a Y' -..� i�
lYlt }-
--' -kE:X A � - -�a ,tea .-.'.If ,�i'�z � ;✓t J -.. rY i _ .�.� ' ! -�.
'Y.
LA
t
r
l a. -.
Exhibit 4.5 -14
Visual Simulation V11 - Kayak 2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
Exhibit 4.5 -15 (Visual Simulation V12 — Kayak 3) illustrates the visual character of the proposed project from
a vantage near the northern limits of the site within the harbor beyond the proposed boat dock. From this
location in a kayak, the entirety of the proposed multiple - family residential development can be seen in
contrast with the existing single- and multiple - family residential development to the south. The proposed boat
dock can be seen in the foreground immediately south of the kayak location. As indicated, some of the
existing rock outcroppings and related features characterizing the cove below the bluff would be obscured by
the proposed dock and boats. In addition, other features along the water's edge south of the cove would also
be obscured; however, all of those features would be seen from other vantages and their loss from view
would be only from locations north of the proposed dock. It is important to note that none of the existing
features would be eliminated or destroyed as a result of project implementation; rather, they would all remain
as elements of the site and come into and go out of one's view depending on the location within the harbor.
Their loss from the field of view would be brief when passing by the site in the harbor. The aesthetic
character of the proposed multiple - family structure in this visual simulation can be compared to that of the
existing residential to the south. As can be seen, the colors and curvilinear design as well as the manner in
which each level of the structure has been stepped back from the bluff face allow the structure to conform to
the bluff, in contrast with the existing single - family residential immediately south of the site and the multiple -
family project located farther south, which are characterized by vertical elements and colors that may be less
aesthetically compatible with the bluff topography.
An additional visual simulation (Visual Simulation V17 — Kayak 4) was created, which depicts the proposed
project from a vantage in the harbor that is between the boat dock for the existing residence south of the
project and the boat dock for the proposed project. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -16, the proposed project,
including the dock facilities proposed, reveal that when viewed from this location, neither the rock
outcroppings nor the cove features would be affected by any of the proposed development. All of the
significant existing cove and bluff features (e.g., rock outcroppings, sandy beach, etc.) will remain in view
from this location within the channel. Furthermore, physical access to the cove is not precluded by either the
residential development or the dock facilities proposed for the project. The effect of the proposed boat docks
from this vantage would not have any significant effects on the important visual amenities within the harbor.
The proposed multiple - family residential structure will be prominent; however, the building has been designed
to conform to the existing topography. As can be seen in this simulation, the northern portion of the structure
is consistent with the predominant line of existing development on the bluff. The existing multiple - family
structure is more reflective of the existing development that characterizes the area, which generally does not
conform to the existing topographic features (i.e., use of vertical elements, lighter colors, etc.). Because of
the scale of the structures located south of the project site, including the Channel Reef Condominium and the
large single - family residence, the proposed structure does not present a significant contrast to the existing
residential development to the south. Although the proposed structure is larger than individual residences to
the north, when comparable land area is considered, the relative scale and mass is compatible with the
existing development. The landscaping provides additional "softening" of the structural edges. As previously
indicated, native landscape materials will be integrated into the design of the project to enhance the
appearance of the bluff.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5-22
Exhibit 4.5 -15
Visual Simulation V12 - Kayak 3
ion.:
r- 5
lip lit f
�- -.
9
IWO
Exhibit 4.5-16
Visual Simulation V17 - Kayak 4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Channel Visual Simulations
Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
In addition to the kayak vantages, three visual simulations were also created to illustrate the anticipated visual
impacts of the proposed project when viewed from the harbor from above the water surface (i.e., in a boat
motoring or sailing into and out of the channel). Exhibit 4.5 -17 (Visual Simulation V13 — Channel 1) illustrates
the visual context of the proposed Aerie project to the existing development to the north and south and the
overall visual character along the bluffs in the vicinity of the project site. As seen in this exhibit, the proposed
project contrasts sharply with the existing single - family residence occupying the bluff face to the south as well
as the residence located on the east side of Ocean Boulevard. The project design features include the
graduated stepping of the residential structure as it extends upward. This feature, along with the curvilinear
appearance, natural -tone colors and materials, and landscaping enable the structure to be integrated into the
bluff topography, in contrast to the existing development that is dominated by their vertical elements (as well
as when compared to the existing apartment building on the site). The northerly portion of the proposed
building terraces back from the bluff as it rises to simulate an extension of the slope of the bluff in that
location. In particular, when compared to the single - family residence adjacent to the subject property, the
proposed multiple - family structure is more visually subdued, even though it is larger. The proposed structure
is also substantially smaller than the Channel Reef apartment development farther south. The bluff has also
been extensively landscaped with native plants to enhance its appearance. The entrance to the cove below
the bluff is both visually and physically accessible. Views of the other significant topographic features of the
property that create aesthetic value in addition to the bluff itself (specifically the rock outcroppings and cove),
would not be significantly affected by the development; none would be altered by the proposed development.
As previously indicated, any potential effect on the view of these features is brief and intermittent as one
"cruises" into and out of the harbor and, therefore, is less than significant. All of the important visual
amenities would be retained as a result of project implementation.
Exhibit 4.5 -18 provides a direct view of the proposed project from inside the channel. This visual simulation
(Visual Simulation V14 — Channel 2) illustrates similar visual context within the channel. Unlike the view
farther south (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -17), the sandy beach cannot be seen from this vantage. In addition, a
portion of the area characterized by the rock outcroppings would be obscured from view when the proposed
docks are occupied; however, the majority of the bluff would be seen even with all of the slips in the boat
dock occupied. From this vantage, the northern portion of the proposed structure is apparent as the building
"wraps" around the bluff. The structural elements appear to be "broken" to reduce the overall scale of the
structure. In this simulation, the stepping back is also apparent, particularly along the northern portion of the
property. Existing development to the south of the subject property is characterized by the horizontal and
vertical structural elements.
Visual Simulation V15 — Channel 3) presented in Exhibit 4.5-19 depicts the proposed development from the
channel just to the north of the proposed boat dock. In this simulation, the relationship of the proposed
structure to those along the north- facing bluff can be seen. As revealed in Exhibit 4.5 -19, the proposed
project will extend out to the northern portion of the bluff to obscure a portion of the existing residence on
Carnation Avenue adjacent to the site. The project has been designed to "break up" the multiple - family
structure to reduce its mass, which is illustrated in the appearance of two structures. Landscaping has also
been integrated into the project design to "soften" the development edges created by the proposed structure.
Similar to other vantages within the harbor, depending on the location of the viewer, visual amenities, may be
obscured by the proposed boat dock. This is true for this vantage. Portions of the rock outcroppings, the
sandy beach, and related features cannot be seen from this location within the harbor; however, virtually all of
the bluff up to the proposed multiple - family structure will remain within view of boaters as they travel into and
out of the harbor.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5-25
Off
Exhibit 4.5 -17
Visual Simulation V13 - Channel 1
ve
M
« 4 a 6 ♦ 4 u P P
Exhibit 4.5 -18
Visual Simulation V14 - Channel 2
cf
12
x•,.
Yi
1 ' ' logo
*'.7—
*r
3
a
J
Exhibit 4.5 -19
Visual Simulation V15 - Channel 3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics
Based on the significance criteria identified in Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as illustrated in the visual simulations, the proposed
structure would not adversely affect a scenic resource. With only minor exception (i.e., emergency access),
the proposed project is situated above the PLOED as prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council in order
to preserve the coastal bluff as a visual resource. The project has been designed to avoid any significant
impact associated with the emergency access by creating a feature that is recessed, which would be
indistinguishable from the existing topographic character of the bluff. Furthermore, none of the significant
features, including rock outcroppings, significant vegetation, the sandy beach, etc., existing on the site would
be affected by site development. The site is devoid of historic structures. As a result, the proposed project
would have no significant adverse visual impact on these features. Although visual character of the site
would be transformed, the project, including the proposed docks, has been designed to avoid potentially
significant impacts to the visual character of the bluff and harbor environment. As previously indicated, the
proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to comply with the development standards
prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance, including building height, lighting, landscaping, etc., to ensure that
no significant visual impacts occur. A modification to the side yard setback requirement is proposed. In
addition, the existing scenic vista available from the designated Public View Point along Ocean Boulevard
near the southern property boundary has been expanded through the project design to create a wider view
angle. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -1, the scenic vista would be expanded by 76 percent and a new view
corridor will be created along the northern property line, which does not exist at the present time. In order to
ensure that adverse effects on a scenic vista will be avoided, MM 4.5 -2 requires the dedication of a view
easement through the property. As stipulated in that measure, no structure or landscape feature located
within the easement would block any public view. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated as
a result of project implementation.
Natural Resources Element
As described in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General
Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies
that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal
resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1
(Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies
adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, Table
4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant
aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the
proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP.
Light and Glare
The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not
conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure
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. Tinted glazing
is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the
glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no
mitigation measures are required.
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. Although 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, it would not create 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 by a considerable distance from the project site and proposed
residential structure. In addition to the distance between the existing proposed and existing structures,
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.55-29
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5- Aesthetics
there are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor
living levels within the project site that minimize the effects of lighting at night. Outdoor lighting within the
project site would be designed to illuminate only the desired activity area on site, and would not cast any
illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits, consistent with the City's adopted lighting
standards (refer to SC 4.5 -2). All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity
for lighting on the subject property to adversely effect at neighboring homes and /or properties. Indoor
and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare
effects. Although the applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to
accommodate nine vessels, resulting in an increase in the area that would require lighting in that location,
it would be similar to that which currently exists in this area and would be designed to cast light only on
the affected area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside
development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant.
4.5.5 Mitigation Measures
As previously indicated, the project has been designed to avoid significant visual impacts. Although some
view from the channel would be momentarily affected by the construction of the boat dock and related
facilities, no important visual amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected. Therefore no significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Incorporation of the standard conditions will effectively address the visual and aesthetic character of the area.
In addition, the proposed project will be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives articulated in
the Natural Resources Element (Visual Resources) of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no
potentially significant impacts will occur as a result of project implement.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.5 -30
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology
4.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY
Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., (Hunsaker) prepared a hydrology analysis for the proposed project to
document the existing hydrologic conditions of the site and to determine the post - development 100 -year peak
storm runoff discharges, which will be utilized as the basis of storm drain design for the proposed project. In
addition, Hunsaker also prepared a Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The findings and recommendations presented in
these documents are summarized below and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach.
4.6.1 Existing Conditions
Local Drainage /Hydrology
No stream or river exists on site. A portion of the 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. In addition, an existing drain pipe system also collects runoff, which is also discharged into Newport
Bay. The site is currently developed. As such, the site is divided into three drainage areas as summarized in
Table 4.6 -1 and illustrated on Exhibit 4.6 -1.
Table 4.6 -1
Existing Hydrology
Drainage Area
Area
(in acres)
Flow Rate
(cubic feet/second)
A
0.125
0.76
B
0.181
1.04
C
0.081
0.51
Total
0.387
2.31
SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (February 2, 2009)
As indicated in Table 4.6 -1, a total of 2.31 cubic feet per second (cfs) is discharged in the existing condition
during a 100 -year storm event. A portion of the runoff associated with the existing development (i.e., Area C)
is discharged to Carnation Avenue where it flows into a public catch basin and then onto the bluff face and
into the harbor from an existing 24 -inch diameter pipe located below the existing multiple - family residence at
approximately 31 feet above mean sea level. Additional runoff is discharged into the bay near the base of the
stairs at the northwestern corner of the site from a second private drain pipe. The remaining runoff occurs as
surface runoff from the roof, which is discharged onto the bluff and ultimately into the cove and harbor below.
The existing surface water flows are neither detained on -site nor treated prior to their discharge into the
harbor.
Flooding
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.
The subject property is located in an area designated by FEMA as "Area C' on the FIRM (i.e., areas
outside the 500 -year flood plain). The site is not subject to the effects of flooding associated with a 100 -
year storm.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -1
0
� o
y L
� x
j� .t9b W Qi
ui
Mo
lo
It
4 .
O.P IY
U o
LU ad
Q c� ,or r' } ^ w° I a W n
It
w it
ayo % o t i
{ - m No 8r o' ,
-
m
ItId
4 l0
W � y
awe m
U
�m
m
W�
anrn t„
�o2N C6
V
W "+
W
Q�
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology
Water Quality
The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Region of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and within the East Costa Mesa - Newport Beach Watershed (i.e., County
of Orange Watershed G). The subject property is tributary to and discharges directly into Lower Newport
Bay, which is currently identified as a 303d- listed impaired water body for Chlordane, Copper, DDT, PCBs
(Polychlorinated biphenyls), and Sediment Toxicity. Additionally, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have
been proposed to be established for copper in 2007 and Chlordane, DDT, PCBs and Sediment Toxicity in
2019. Due to the proximity of the site to Lower Newport Bay, the site contains "environmentally sensitive
areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water
Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin (Basin Plan).
Surface water quality is subject to federal, state and local water quality requirements. General requirements
are reflected in Table 4.6 -2 and described below.
Table 4.6 -2
Water Quality Regulatory Agencies
Water Quality Requirement
Enforcement Agency
Clean Water Act (CWA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
(N DES) Permit
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB
Drainage Area Management Plan DAMP
County of Orange
Local Water Quality Ordinance
City of Newport
Beach
Coastal Programs Division (CPD) within the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management OCRM
California Coastal Act
California Coastal Commission CCC
Local Coastal Program LCP
City of Newport Beach
Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Order No. 2002 -0010, NPDES No. CAS618030, Waste
Discharge Requirements for the county of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and The Incorporated Cities of Orange
County Within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County.
SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., (January 28, 2009
4.6.2 Significance Criteria
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of
the following occurs as a result of project implementation.
Substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and /or damage from water
forces to the subject project and /or other properties are caused by improvements such as
grading, construction of barriers or structures.
Development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose
people and /or property to potential serious injury and /or damage.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -3
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology
Impervious surfaces increase and /or divert storm water runoff that result in the inability of
the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows.
Project implementation will cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the
existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters.
• A usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes is
substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge.
• Storm water and /or induced runoff mixes with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to
the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids,
introduction of sediments, etc.) that, in turn, substantially and adversely affects the
habitat.
• Sediments are increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment
deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat
and /or sensitive species.
4.6.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.6 -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a
notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
for coverage of such future projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water
Runoff Permit prior to initiation of construction activity. As required by the NPDES permit, a
Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish
BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion.
SC 4.6 -2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board for approval. The WQMP shall specifically identify Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including
flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush." The WQMP shall identify at a
minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures specified in the Countywide
NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs
whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance
responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs
SC 4.6 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water
Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit that plan to the City of Newport Beach
for approval. The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and
erosion.
SC 4.6-4 Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage controls imposed by the
applicable Municipal Code requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6-4
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology
4.6.4 Potential Impacts
4.6.4.1 Short -Terre Construction Impacts
Water Quality
The site is under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issues
related to water quality. As previously indicated, each of the nine California RWQCBs is responsible for
adopting and implementing water quality control plans for each basin's water bodies, regulating waste
discharges from both point and nonpoint sources, and monitoring permit compliance within its designated
basin. Development of the subject property as proposed will result in alteration of the site and a change in
the existing drainage conditions on the site. Exposure of the site during grading could result in an increase in
erosion that could adversely affect water quality. In addition, the construction of parking lots and other
circulation features that accommodate automobiles could also contribute to an increase in hydrocarbon and
other pollutant discharges into the surface and ground water features.
Site grading and construction activities that occur as a result of project implementation may result in short-
term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs
prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP that must be prepared for the proposed multiple - family residential
project will ensure that the construction - related impacts resulting from site grading will minimize the amount of
silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or
reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in
the standard conditions previously identified. These measures will be implemented during grading and
construction activities. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code
requirements) will further minimize construction - related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
Aerie residential project will not have a significant effect on water quality as a result of silt and sediment
transport from construction activities.
Although it is anticipated that the concentration of urban pollutants in storm runoff from the grading and
construction activities associated with project implementation could increase during the construction
phase, the runoff would be controlled through applicable BMPs to minimize discharges of pollutants,
including siltation associated with erosion resulting from grading activities. Further, once construction
activities are completed, these potential impacts will cease.
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
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 who
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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -5
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology
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.
As indicated in Chapter 3.0, project implementation also includes the replacement of the existing four -slip
dock facility with an eight -boat dock and one guest side tie to accommodate future residents of the
proposed dwelling units. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality
impacts. 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. Appropriate
mitigation measures will be required to ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts
associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level (refer to Section 4.7-
5).
4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts
Hydrology
Due to the extensive site grading and excavation requirements and expanded building coverage, the
existing drainage areas that encompass the site will be modified. Impervious surfaces comprising the
existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the project site. When
redeveloped as proposed, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 26 percent of the project site.
The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable.
Project implementation will result in the elimination of two of the drainage areas that currently exist.
However, although the subject property will encompass only one drainage area after grading and site
development, implementation of the condominium project will not alter the existing off -site drainage
patterns. Moreover, the total discharge from the site in the developed condition is estimated to be only
1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs (refer to Table
4.6 -1). The decrease in storm flow is largely attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would
capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing the total storm flows on the site under existing
condition because a swimming pool does not currently exist. 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 element within the outlet
structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Table
4.6 -3 summarizes the post - development hydrologic conditions (refer to Exhibit 4.6 -2).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -6
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology
Table 4.6 -3
Post - Development Hydrology
As indicated in Table 4.6 -2, virtually all of the stormwater emanating from the site in the developed condition
will be generated in Drainage Area C. Although the 1.95 cfs anticipated to occur in the developed condition is
less than under existing conditions, the entire building watershed has been directed to the pump vault
proposed in the southern corner of the structure. The maximum pump discharge is 0.50, which approximates
the flow currently entering the 24 -inch RCP prior to discharging onto the bluff face and into the harbor. The
pump vault is designed to store the peak flow, thereby reducing the discharge to that approximating the
existing discharge. In addition, a storm filter and bacteria treatment system will also be installed along
Carnation Avenue. The outflow from this facility is proposed to connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP.
It must also be noted that an off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the
existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area
has a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a
decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate
capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related
impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this
facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the
tributary area, including the project site.
The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin
located in Carnation 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 11.54 -acre drainage 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.
Implementation of this improvement by the applicant will ensure that adequate capacity will be provided in the
deficient catch basin.
100 -Year Flood Plain
Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the
subject property within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no
significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -8
Area
Flow Rate
Drainage Area
(in acres)
(cubic feet/second)
A
0.0
0.0
B
0.0
0.0
C
0.387
1.95
Total
0.387
0.50
'The 1.95 cfs emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated, and
discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than
the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged from Area C.
SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (February 2, 2009
As indicated in Table 4.6 -2, virtually all of the stormwater emanating from the site in the developed condition
will be generated in Drainage Area C. Although the 1.95 cfs anticipated to occur in the developed condition is
less than under existing conditions, the entire building watershed has been directed to the pump vault
proposed in the southern corner of the structure. The maximum pump discharge is 0.50, which approximates
the flow currently entering the 24 -inch RCP prior to discharging onto the bluff face and into the harbor. The
pump vault is designed to store the peak flow, thereby reducing the discharge to that approximating the
existing discharge. In addition, a storm filter and bacteria treatment system will also be installed along
Carnation Avenue. The outflow from this facility is proposed to connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP.
It must also be noted that an off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the
existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area
has a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a
decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate
capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related
impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this
facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the
tributary area, including the project site.
The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin
located in Carnation 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 11.54 -acre drainage 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.
Implementation of this improvement by the applicant will ensure that adequate capacity will be provided in the
deficient catch basin.
100 -Year Flood Plain
Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the
subject property within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no
significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -8
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology
Water Quality
The potential stormwater or urban runoff pollutants reasonably expected to occur as a result of project
implementation include: (1) sediment from driveways, parking areas, roads and roof tops; (2) organic
compounds derived from automotive fluids, pesticides, and fertilizers; (3) nutrients (e.g., nitrogen,
phosphorous, etc.) generated by organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment; (4) metals (e.g.,
copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) from motor vehicles, re- roofing and
hardscape /construction materials, and chemicals; (5) bacteria and viruses from animal excrement, sanitary
sewer overflow, and trash container handling areas; (6) oil and grease from motor vehicles; (7) oxygen -
demanding substances, including biodegradable organic materials and various household chemicals, which
deplete dissolved oxygen levels in water courses; (8) pesticides, including household bug sprays, weed
killers and other household sources; and (9) trash and debris, which include common litter, biodegradable
organic matter such as leaves, grass cuttings, etc., from landscaped areas.
A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is hereby
incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR. The WQMP 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 following routine
structural and non - structural BMPs will be incorporated into the project design.
Routine Non - Structural BMPs
N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants
Facility users will be notified of the impacts of their actions on water quality.
Requirements will be established for the implementation of an awareness program that
informs facility users of the impacts of dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially
harmful chemicals into the storm drain; proper use and management of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping; and the impacts of littering and improper
watering.
N2 — Activity Restrictions
Language will be included in the CC &Rs of the HOA to identify source water quality
protection required of all property owners and contractors.
N3 — Common Area Landscape Management
Ongoing maintenance will be consistent with any City requirements, the county Water
Conservation Resolution, and the State of California Model Water- Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. In addition, fertilizer and pesticide usage will be consistent with the County
Management Guidelines for use of Fertilizers and Pesticides.
N4 — BMP Maintenance
The HOA will be responsible for implementing each applicable non - structural BMP and
scheduling inspection and maintenance cleaning of all applicable structural BMP
facilities. The HOA will also be responsible for inspection and maintenance activities in
landscape areas and for controlling debris and other water pollutants.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -9
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology
• N11 —Common Area Litter Control
Weekly sweeping and trash pick -up within the project area will be required, with daily
inspection of trash receptacles. In addition, litter controls will be established and
violations will be noted and reported.
• N12 — Employee Training
Annual employee training /education will be established by the HOA that applies to future
employees, contractors and volunteers to inform and train those engaged in maintenance
activities that include the use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.
• N15 — Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots
All parking areas exposed to rain will be vacuum swept on a weekly basis.
Routine Structural BMPs
Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage
Although the project does not propose on -site catch basins, signs will be posted
throughout the site with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean."
Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction
Trash enclosures will be provided in designated areas that are covered to prevent contact
with wind and rain. Drainage from trash enclosure areas will be prohibited from entering
the storm drain.
Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart
controllers, and source control
All common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water
requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration.
The City's "Water- Efficient Landscaping" ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17) will
be implemented with common areas maintained by the HOA.
In addition, site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be
implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential
impacts to that impaired water body. Specifically, the site has been designed to minimize impervious
areas and maximize permeability. The site has also been designed to minimize directly connected
impervious areas. Treatment BMPs incorporated into the project intended to treat surface runoff include
a proprietary StormFilter unit. The Stormwater Quality Design Flows (SQDF)' for the project's cumulative
drainage areas have been determined to be 0.058 cfs. The size of the units will be determined based on
the final hydrology study to be prepared prior to issuance of the grading permit. Following treatment by
the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for
additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern.
'The Orange County DAMP requires that flow -based BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) based on the
maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour for each hour of a storm event.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -10
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology
Other BMPs that will be implemented include parking and storage area maintenance to ensure that the
parking area is cleaned on a regular basis. Use of absorbent materials to clean up vehicle - related spills
and leaks will be disposed of properly. The pool will also be cleaned regularly to control algae, pool filters
will be cleaned and inspected regularly, and pool water will be disposed of properly, into the sanitary
sewer. Implementation of these and other measures outlined in the WQMP will ensure that potential
water quality impacts resulting from project implementation will be less than significant and will be
minimized.
The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for
the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Lower 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 filtered by a storm filter and bacteria
filter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. Notwithstanding the 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 storm drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and
Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP will ensure that this project does not violate
any water quality standards over the long -term operating life of the developed site.
In addition, the WQMP also includes measures that are intended to avoid water quality impacts within
Newport Bay during the construction of the proposed dock facility. These measures, which are also
included in the CMP, are design features of the proposed project. They include:
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.
Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited.
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.
All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor daily
With the incorporation of these measures prescribed in the CMP, no significant water quality impacts to
Newport Bay would occur as a result of project implementation.
4.6.5 Mitigation Measures
Hydrology
Project implementation will result in a reduction in storm flows generated on the project site. Although no
significant project - related impacts will occur, the applicant will upgrade the existing deficient catch basin,
which will ensure that adequate capacity exists to accommodate storm flows within the drainage area.
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -11
Aerie PA2005 -197
Draft Environmentat Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology
Flooding
Based on the hydraulic analysis prepared for the proposed project, project implementation will not result in a
significant impact on the water surface elevations for 100 -year storm flows. The subject property is located in
FEMA Area C (i.e., outside of the 500 -year flood plain); all of the development (i.e., structures) is proposed to
be located outside of the revised floodplain. Therefore, no significant flooding impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation measures are required.
Water Quality
The incorporation of BMPs prescribed in the WQMP and Construction Management Plan as well as the
storm drainagelflood control facilities proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project will reduce potential
pollutants that enter the surface flows as a result of project implementation to the "maximum extent
practicable," as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, no significant water
quality impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the standard conditions, project features (upgraded catch basin), and, specifically, the
BMPs prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, Draft WQMP and SWPPP, as well as
implementation of the proposed storm drainage system described above, will ensure that the potential
impacts associated with an increase in surface runoff resulting from development of the proposed Aerie
residential project are reduced avoided. No significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project
implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6 -12
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared by P &D Consultants (June 10, 2005), which documented the
existing biological constraints on the subject property. A Biological Impact Report to assess terrestrial
resources was prepared by ICF /Jones & Stokes (December 2008). The analysis presented in these reports
was based on current aerial photographs, a site visit and updated literature reviews (Appendix H). In
addition, Coastal Resources Management, Inc., prepared a report entitled, "Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) Impact
Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Code, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625" (May 9,
2008), which assessed the marine biological impacts associated with project implementation (Appendix 1).
Finally, a "Jurisdictional Determination for Area of African Umbrella Sedge Adjacent to Aerie Project Site
Location in Newport Beach, Orange County, California;' (Appendix J) was also undertaken by Glenn Lukos
Associates (GLA) to determine whether wetlands were present on the subject property. The findings and
recommendations of these reports are summarized in the following sections.
4.7.1 Existing Conditions
Terrestrial Biological Resources
Veaetation and Habitat
The project site is located on a bluff located east of the entrance to Newport Harbor. Topographically, the
site is characterized by a sloping coastal bluff that drops sharply to a small beach and cove along the
western project boundary. The upper elevation of the project site is approximately 70 feet above mean
sea level.
Four depleted natural communities were identified in the literature review conducted for the proposed
project as potentially occurring within the project vicinity: (1) Southern coastal salt marsh; (2) Southern
cottonwood willow riparian forest; (3) Southern dune scrub; and (4) Southern foredunes. None of these
depleted natural communities are present within the project site.
Based on the reconnaissance field visit of the project site and a review of the plans prepared by Robert
Mitchell & Associates, the dominant vegetation type on the project site is ornamental species; however, a
remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community exists on the rocky outcrop along the northern project
boundary extending into Newport Bay. The coastal bluff face, which is located below the existing
structures, is densely vegetated with ornamental species and some scattered natives. Southern coastal
bluff scrub is dominated by woody and succulent species. Growth and flowering occur from late winter
through spring. Species in this vegetation community and observed at the project site include California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), California sagebrush
(Artemesia californica), bush sunflower (Encelia californica), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and
coastal goldenbush ( /socoma menziesit).' The majority of the non - native plant species on the subject
property included but are not limited to: sea lavender (Limonium perezil), soft -chess (Brome
hordeaceus), (oxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), wild oat (Avena sp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis),
century plant (Agave sp.), crystalline iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), sweet clover (MeNotus
sp.), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis sp.), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca).
'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 integrifolia), California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), and bush sunflower (Encelia califomica) had been removed from the site. Although pruning and trimming
necessary to maintain the lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) on the site occurred, none of these species have been removed as
indicated in the Existing Vegetation Map prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates. Based on the Existing Vegetation Map, the
lemonade berry is making a comeback and appear to be in good health.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Critical Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plan
Critical habitat is a term defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It refers to specific geographic
areas that are essential to the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. The project site is not located within any
designated critical habitat, including a designated Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) area.
Special- Status Plants and Wildlife
Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have "special status" due to declining populations,
vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special status species are those listed under
the federal Endangered Species List as threatened or endangered, or federal candidate for listing; those
species listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, or a state
species of special concern; or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A, 1B, and 2.
A total of 82 special status plant and wildlife species are identified as potentially occurring in the project
region. Of these 82 species, nine plant species and one wildlife species have potential to occur due to
suitable habitat conditions or was observed at the project site. The remaining plant and wildlife species
described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the project site
due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range.
Special Status Plant Species
The nine plant species that have the potential to occur at the project site are listed and described in Table
4.7 -1. During the reconnaissance site visit conducted for the project, none of these species were
observed.
Table 4.7 -1
Special Status Plants
Species
Status
Potential for Occurrence
Aphanisma blooms from March through June and is
found from Orange, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara
Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are
Aphanisma
Federal: None
Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and
( Aphanisma blitoides)
State: None
Coastal sage scrub from 3 to 1,000 feet. Habitat
Other. CNP List 1 B
conditions on site are not ideal to support this species
but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys
performed during the appropriate blooming window
would determine presence/absence.
South Coast Saltscale blooms from march through
October and is found from Orange, Riverside, and Los
Angeles Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb
South Coast Saltscale
Federal: None
are Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and
(Atriplex paci(ca)
State: None
Coastal sage scrub from 0 to 460 feet. Habitat
Other: GNP List 1B
conditions on site are not ideal to support this species
but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys
performed during the appropriate blooming window
would determine presencelabsence.
San Fernando Valley Spine6ower blooms from April
through July and is found from Orange, Los Angeles,
Federal: Candidate
and Ventura Counties. Typical habitats of this annual
San Fernando Valley
State: Endangered
herb are open, sandy soils, valley and grassland foothills
r. Fn andin
(Chorizanfhe panyi var. fenandina)
Other: CNP List 1B
from 98 to 1,804 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not
ideal to support this species but are nonetheless
present. Focused surveys performed during the
appropriate bloomin window would determine
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Species
Status
Potential for Occurrence
presence/absence.
Southern Tarplant blooms from May through November
and is found from Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa
Barbara Counties. Typical habitats for this annual herb
Federal: None
are marshes, swamps (margins), valley and foothill
Southern Tarplant
State: None
grassland (vernally mesic), and vernal pools from 0 to
(Centromadia parryi ssp. australis)
Other: CNP List 1 B
1,394 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to
support this species but are nonetheless present.
Focused surveys performed during the appropriate
blooming window would determine presence /absence.
Salt Marsh Bird's Beak blooms from May through
October and is found from Los Angeles and Orange
Federal: Endangered
Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are
Salt Marsh Bird's Beak
State, Endangered
coastal dunes, marshes, and coastal salt swamps from 0
(Cordylanthus ma dtimus sap. maritimus)
Other: CNP List 1 B
to 98 feet. This species is known from coastal bluffs and
Newport Back Bay. Focused surveys performed during
the appropriate blooming window would determine
presence/absence.
Many- stemmed Dudleya blooms from April through July
and is found from Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. Typical habitats of this perennial
Many- stemmed Dudleya
Federal: None
herb are chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
(Dudleya multicaulis)
State: None
grasslands in clay soils from 49 to 2,592 feet. Habitat
Other: CNP List 1B
conditions on site are not ideal to support this species;
however, this species is known from the project region.
Focused surveys performed during the appropriate
blooming window would determine presencelabsence.
Laguna Beach Dudleya blooms from May through July
and is found in Orange County. Typical habitats of this
stoloniferous herb are cismontane woodland, chaparral,
Laguna Beach Dudleya
Federal: Threatened
coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and rocky
(Dudleya stolonifera)
State: Threatened
substrates from 32 to 853 feet. Habitat conditions on
Other: CNP List 1B
site are not ideal to support this species; however, this
species is known from the project region. Focused
surveys performed during the appropriate blooming
window would determine resence/absence.
Cliff Spurge blooms from December through August and
is found in Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles
Cliff Spurge
Federal: None
Counties. Typical habitats for this shrub are coastal bluff
(Euphorbia misers)
State: None
scrub from 32 to 1,640 feet. Habitat conditions on site
Other. CNP List 1B
are suitable to support this species. Focused surveys
performed during the appropriate blooming window
would determine presence/absence.
Big - leaved Crownbeard blooms from April through July
and is found in Orange county. Typical habitats for this
Big - leaved Crownbeard
Federal: Threatened
perennial herb are chaparral and coastal sage scrub
(Verbesina dissita)
State: Threatened
from 147 to 672 feet. Habitat conditions on site are
Other: CNP List 1B
suitable to support this species. Focused surveys
performed during the appropriate blooming window
would determine resence /absence.
SOURCE: ICF /Jones &Stokes December 2008
Wildlife
The site has been significantly altered as a result of past development of the property. Nonetheless,
wildlife species were observed on the site or are expected to occur, including amphibians, reptiles, birds
and mammals. These species are described below.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -3
Aerie PA2005 -996
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle and many require standing or flowing
water for reproduction. Only one amphibian, the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regalia) is expected to occur at
the project site. Similarly, only one species of reptile was observed at the site: the western fence lizard
(Sceloporus occidentalis). Birds are the most commonly observed vertebrate species at the site. Those
species that are common residents of developed urban areas and observed at the site include the house
sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna),
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and double- crested
cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus).
Conditions at the site do not provide adequate nesting habitat for most raptors (i.e., birds of prey). The
sparse southern coastal bluff scrub and ornamental vegetation at the project site do not provide extensive
foraging or suitable nesting habitat for raptor species, which typically forage and breed in larger natural
open spaces areas. However, some raptor species are adapted to urban conditions. Limited opportunity
to forage at the project site exists along the southern coastal bluff, within the ornamental vegetation and
on the small beach. Raptor species that may occur within the vicinity of the project site include Cooper's
hawk (Accipiter cooperil), red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp- shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barn owl (Tyto Alba), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus).
Small ground - dwelling mammals having potential to occur at the project site include several species of
rodents. The pocket mouse (Peromyscus sp.), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California
ground squirrel (Spermcphilus beecheyi), and Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubon6) are the most
abundant of these species. Bats occur throughout most of southern California, including the project
environs. Those species that could potentially occur at the project site are inactive during the winter and
either hibernate or migrate, depending on the species. Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis califronicus),
Mexican long- tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), and big free - tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) are
not expected to roost or forage at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions. Larger
mammals, including both herbivores and carnivores, are not expected to occur at the project site because
it is not adjacent to any undeveloped open space. Only two mammal species were identified at the site
based on their tracks: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and domestic cat (Fells catus).
Special- Status Wildlife
State- or Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Animals
Many special status wildlife species are known to occur in the project vicinity. However, the project site
has been significantly altered as a result of past development, resulting in the elimination of the potential
for many special status wildlife to occur. One wildlife species, currently listed as endangered by the State
(SE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FE), was observed utilizing the project site. Brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalls) was observed during the reconnaissance survey conducted in 2008. Six
threatened animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the region (i.e., Newport Beach
U.S.G.S. quadrangle). These species include the California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonl),
western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis
cotumiculus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica), Santa Ana sucker
(Catostomus santaanae), and southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis).
In addition, 15 endangered animal species were also identified as potentially occurring within the region:
San Diego fairy shrimp (Brachinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni),
Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), arroyo toad (Bulb, califomicus), short- tailed albatross
(Phaebastria albatrus), light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California least tern (Sterna
antillarum browns) Western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), least Bell's vireo
(Vireo beed pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extrimus), Brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldings),
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -996— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7-4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
and Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). None of these species were observed
on the subject property with the exception of the brown pelican. None of these threatened or endangered
species are expected to occur on the site because of the level of disturbance that has occurred on the
property.
As indicated above, the federally endangered brown pelican was observed at the project site. This species,
which is the smallest of the eight species of pelican, although it is a large bird in nearly every other regard,
was observed at the project site utilizing the existing dock that extends into Newport harbor. Brown pelicans
forage and roost in Newport Harbor and breed on the Channel Islands and islands off the Baja California
coast. The brown pelican is also designated by the State of California as "Endangered."
Habitat Linkages and Corridors
Habitat linkages provide a genetic link or communication between two or more typically larger or superior in
quality natural areas to the linkage and they provide substantial long -term habitat resources and facilitate
movement across a linkage that can span generations of individual organisms. Connected patches also
typically have substantially overlapping species inventories and resources. Such linkage sites can be small
or constrained in some cases; however, they may be critical to the long -term health and viability of
populations within the connected natural areas. Corridors, on the other hand, provide specific opportunities
for individual animals to disperse or migrate among other areas, which may be very extensive but otherwise
partially or entirely separated regions. Corridors are characterized by appropriate cover, minimum physical
dimensions, and low levels of disturbance and mortality risk. Corridors adequate for one species may be
inadequate for others.
The project site and adjacent Newport Bay restrict opportunities for terrestrial wildlife movement because of
the existing, surrounding urban development. Migratory birds are visitors to Newport Harbor. The project site
provides only limited opportunity (i.e., presence of limited southern coastal bluff scrub and existing dock) for
migratory birds to roost and forage. Some marine fish species move into and out of the harbor for spawning
or for nursery areas.
Wetlands
A jurisdictional determination was prepared by GtA to determine whether wetlands are present on the
subject property. No blue line drainages (as depicted on the Newport Beach U.S.G.S. topography map)
existing on the project site. Based on the survey conducted in December 2008, a limited area of African
umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW), covering approximately 190 square feet (0.004 ac) occurs on
the slope adjacent to the proposed building site. The African umbrella sedge begins approximately two feet
below the point where a 30 -inch drainage pipe discharges onto the steeply sloping (i.e., 1:1 horizontal to
vertical) bluff. The area supporting the African umbrella sedge is surrounded by ornamental vegetation,
including Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum), tobira (Pittosporum tobira), and two species of privit
(Ligustrum spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), which also dominates the irrigated slope
immediately above the umbrella sedge.
The determination of the presence or absence of wetlands is based on three criteria: (1) vegetation; (2) soils;
and (3) hydrology. Within the area occupied by the African umbrella sedge, it was estimated to account for
80 percent of the total cover with Victorian box and privit accounting for about 10 percent each. Based on the
criteria utilized to establish (vegetation) dominance (refer to the Jurisdiction Determination prepared by GLA
in Appendix J, only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant. However, in this instance, the
presence of a species with an indicator status of FACW (i.e., up to one -third of occurrences of this species is
in upland areas) is not sufficient to make a positive determination for the presence of wetlands. African
umbrella sedge is a common landscape plant that is highly adaptable, as indicated in the Sunset Western
Garden Book:
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -5
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
"Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools, in pots or planters, or in dry streambeds or
rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy..."
The second factor considered in the determination of wetlands is soils. Soils on the slope are thin, overlying
bedrock. The soils that support the African umbrella sedge are upland soils. Because of the 1:1 slope and
the sandy character of the soils, the soils drain quickly and do not have the ability to become saturated. No
evidence of hydric soils development was detected and it is not expected due to the steepness of the slope
and ability of the sandy soils to drain quickly.
In addressing the presence of wetland hydrology, the determination considered two factors: (1) the
hydrological indicators set forth in the Arid West Supplement; and (2) the definition in the Coastal Act, which
includes area "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." Based on the latter
criterion, the steepness of the existing slope and well- drained character of the sandy soils indicate that there
is no potential for the area to be "covered" periodically or permanently with shallow water. Storm flows would
drain quickly through the sandy soils precluding saturation for sufficient duration to be consistent with the
presence of "wetland hydrology' (i.e., saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the
upper 12 inches). Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of
the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water, which was
observed during the site visit by GLA and documented in the determination (refer to Appendix _).
Based on the field survey conducted by GLA, the African umbrella sedge area lacks indicators for the
presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and, therefore, is not considered to be a wetland under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands exist on the
subject property. Similarly, the African umbrella sedge area is not associated with a stream or lake and is not
subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (i.e., California Department
of Fish and Game).
Although the African umbrella sedge area exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species (the African
umbrella sedge being the sole such species), it lacks evidence for the presence of hydric soils and wetland
hydrology and, therefore, would not be considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because the 190 square
foot area is not covered permanently or periodically with shallow water. Rather, the area is supported
primarily by intermittent artificial water sources, including landscape irrigation from the adjacent slope and
existing storm drain. While that fact alone does not preclude the area from being a wetland, the specific area
is not considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because it does not meet the Act's definition of a wetland
for the following reasons.
Irrespective of any "parameter" test (e.g., vegetation, soils, and hydrology), the area under
consideration as a wetland must be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water.
As previously indicated, the area in question comprises a steep slope, which precludes it
from being covered by shallow water except during very brief periods of intense rainfall.
Furthermore the lack of hydric soils (confirmed during the field investigation) indicates that
water does not cover or saturate the soil for sufficient duration necessary to promote
development of hydric soils and the growth of hydrophytes, which are present due to the
artificial irrigation that is applied to the adjacent vegetation.
In accordance with Coastal Commission Regulations (i.e., Section 13577 of Title 14, Division
5.5 of the California Code of Regulations), the Coastal Commission has interpreted the
regulation consistent with what is often referred to as the "One Parameter Definition." While
the Coastal Commission takes the position that the presence of a single wetland indicator
establishes a presumption that a wetland is present, that presumption can be "... rebutted
by strong, independent evidence of upland conditions. "2 Furthermore, Coastal Commission
'Dr. John Dixon, Staff Ecologist, California Coastal Commission (November 5, 2003).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biolooical Resources
staff also concluded in a staff report the following opinion: "In recognition of the fact that a
proportion of wetland indicator plants occur in uplands, the wetland presumption may be
falsified where there is strong, positive evidence of upland conditions.n3 As a result, once
the Commission establishes the presumption, the burden shifts to the applicant, who must
then prove that one or both of the other indicators does not exist, which is a critical
distinction because it allows for an in -depth biological analysis to determine if the area is not
a wetland despite the presence of a single wetland indicator.
Given the clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils based on the jurisdictional
determination conducted for the proposed project, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrae
sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of occurrences,
the 190 square foot area occupied by that species is not a wetland as defined by the Coastal Act.
Marine Biological Resources
Eelgrass /Eelgrass Habitat
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and
estuaries and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 feet. Eelgrass canopy (consisting of shoots and leaves
approximately two to three feet long) attracts many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation
and the vertical relief it provides enhances the abundance and the diversity of the marine life compared to
areas where the sediments are barren. The vegetation also serves a nursery function for many juvenile
fishes, including species of commercial and /or sports fish values (e.g., California halibut and barred sand
bass). A diverse community of bottom - dwelling invertebrates (e.g., clams, crabs and worms) lives within the
soft sediments that cover the root and rhizome mass system. Eelgrass meadows are critical foraging centers
for seabirds (such as the endangered California least tern) that seek out baitfish (i.e., juvenile topsmelt)
attracted to the eelgrass cover. Eelgrass is also in important contributor to the detrital (decaying organic)
food web of bays as the decaying plant material is consumed by many benthic (i.e., lowest levels of a water
body) invertebrates such as polycheate worms and reduced to primary nutrients by bacteria.
As indicated in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and CLUP, the City has
identified eelgrass beds as an important biological resource. Eelgrass beds, which are illustrated in Figure
NR1 of the Natural Resources Element, are located within the Newport Harbor entrance channel, including in
the vicinity of the subject property, as well as along the Balboa Peninsula, Linda Isle, Harbor Island and
Balboa Island west of the project site. Although the eelgrass beds are recognized as an important biological
resource, they are not included in the environmental study areas (ESAs) illustrated in Figure NR2.
Nonetheless, the Natural Resources Element includes specific policies intended to avoid impacts to eelgrass.
Eelgrass habitat in the project environs was mapped in 2005 and 2007. In 2005, a total of 10,155.4 square
feet (0.233 acre) of eelgrass existed in the project vicinity. The majority of the eelgrass (0.231 acre) occurred
south of the existing boat dock; one small patch occurred outside the project boundary, approximately 42 feet
north of the existing boat dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 feet south of the existing dock and
extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef condominium complex.
The epifaunal (i.e., animals that live on the sea floor or attached to other animals or objects under water) snail
Alia carinata, was present in low to moderate densities living on the eelgrass blades. The eelgrass
distribution based on the 2007 survey was generally similar to that mapped in 2005 with some minor
boundary differences. The total of 10,062 square feet (0.231 acre) was mapped in 2007. This amount
represents a decline of about one percent of the eelgrass mapped in 2005. The slight decline in eelgrass
cover was associated with the bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed during the same period
(i.e., 2005 to 2007).
Staff Ecoloaist. California Coastal Commission.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Eelgrass turion (i.e., the part of the plant consisting of the emerging shoot and leaves) density was not
determined during the 2007 survey. However, based on a comparative analysis of the densities estimated in
2004 and 2005, eelgrass turion density in the region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable and the turion
density for the project area is expected to be similar to that noted during the 2004 and 2005 surveys.
Invasive Species
Caulerpa taxifolfa (invasive algae) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and
nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out compete other algae and seagrasses. This species grows
as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced
in a non - native marine 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. No invasive
species of algae, including Caulerpa taxifolia, in the general vicinity of the project site were found during
either the 2005 or 2007 surveys.
Carnation Cove Marine Life
Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near
the Harbor Entrance Channel and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands to silt substrates. This
region of Newport Harbor share 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 sandy
tidal flat that displays features that while once present and common, no longer exists in other areas of
Newport Bay.
Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the
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. However, the Department of Fish and Game prohibits the taking of
marine organisms within 1,000 feet of high tide, sand dollars are not a protected or "sensitive" species. The
occurrence of sand dollars is not unusual for nearshore southern California sandy habitats at depths;
between 10 and 25 feet mean lower low water (MLLW); however, the occurrence of intertidal populations of
the species within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave
motion /wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent. The
population represents a condition that was once common on Newport Bay tidal sand flats.
The channel nassa snail (Nassarius fossatus) and the purple olive snail (Olivella biplicata), typical of shallow
sand bottom communities were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly
offshore of the cove.
The marine biological community living on the low intertidal rocky substrate surrounding Carnation Cove is
dominated by high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis squamigerus), and secondary, lower biological
cover of barnacles (Balanus spp.), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis), green algae (Enferomopha/Ulva
complex), and brown algae (Sargassum muticum, and Codium fragile). Invertebrates observed on the
shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kellefll), ochre sea star (Pisasfer
ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvimensis), and lobster (Panilurus interruptus).
At depths seaward of the eelgrass beds, the sandy silt bay floor in the Harbor Entrance Channel was
colonized by sea pens (Stylatula elongata), sheep crab (Loxorhynchus grandis), Kellet's whelk, and the tube -
dwelling polycheate Diopatra omafa. Nine species of fish were observed during the 2005 and 2007 surveys,
including the mullet (Mugil cepahlus), topsmelt (Atherinops afnis), senorita (Halichores semicintus),
California garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), black perch (Embiotoca jacksonl), kelp bass (Paralabrax
clathratus), barred sand bass (P. nebulifer), unidentified turbot (Pleuronichthys sp.), and round sting ray
(Urolophus hallen).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Marine Mammals
Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Pinnipeds (sea lions and seals) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have been recorded inside and outside
of Newport Harbor, including California sea lion (Salophus californica), Pacific bottle -nose dolphin (Tursiops
truncates), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The most common marine mammal occurring in the
harbor is the California sea lion, which prefer to haul out near the Pavilion. Harbor seals are les common that
sea lions but individuals can be found sporadically throughout the year. Dolphins are seen occasionally and
sightings of whales are rare. No marine mammal species breed in Newport harbor. None of the pinnipeds
found within the harbor are endangered and none were observed at the project site.
Special Status Marine Species
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 and /or utilize eelgrass habitat. These
species, and their potential to occupy the project site and environs, are identified in Table 4.7 -2.
Table 4.7 -2
Special Status Marine Species
Scientific Name/
Potential to
Common Name
USFWS' /NMFS Status'
CDFG Status'
Occur
Plants
NMFS — HAPC
Phyllospadix torreyi
FMP Species under the
Surfgrass
Magnuson- Stevens Fishery
—
Low Potential
Conservation and
Manage ant Act
NMFS — HAPC
Zostera marina
FMP Species under the
Magnuson- Stevens Fishery
--
High Potential; Observed on-
Eelgrass
Conservation and
site
Management Act
Invertebrates
Extremely low to no potential
Haliotis cracherodii
FE
__
to occur on rocky areas in
Black abalone
front of the cove; very rare in
southern California
Fishes
Eucyclogobius newberryi
FE
__
No Potential; Extirpated from
Tidewater goby
Orange County
Low Potential; May spawn on
Leuresthes tenuls
Big Corona Beach and the
California Grunion`
_
open coastal beaches of
Newport Beach
Two individuals observed
associated with rocky reef
habitat in front of cove in
Hypsypops rubicundus
Protected under commercial
California State
vicinity of proposed dock
California garibaldi
and sport fish regulations
Marine Fish — AB77
structure. Most common
(1995)
within entrance channel north
to Coast Guard facility on
aayside Drive compared to
other areas of the harbor
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -9
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Scientific Name/
Potential to
Common Name
USFWS' /NMFS Status'
CDFG Status'
Occur
Reptiles
Chelonia mydas
FE
—
Rare Visitor
Green turtle
Eretmochelys imbricate
FE
—
Rare Visitor
Hawksbill sea turtle
Birds
Pe/ecanus occidentalis
FE'
SE
Forages and rests in project
Brown pelican
area
Nesting habitat occurs in
Upper Newport Bay and the
Santa Ana River mouth; will
Sterna antillarum browni
FE
CE
forage on juvenile baitfish in
California least tern
the nearshore waters,
Newport Harbor and Upper
Bay channels, usually within 5
miles of nesting sites
Charadrius alexanddnus
No nesting habitat present on
Western snowy plover
FT
SSC
site; no potential for
individuals to occur on -site
Mammals
Zalophus calitomianus
MMA
__
Not abundant, but individuals
California sea lion
are present in Newport Harbor
Tursiops truncatus
Bottlenose dolphin
MMA
--
Rare visitor to Newport Harbor
Eschrichtius robustus
MMA
--
Rare visitor to Newport Harbor
California gray whale
'FE — Federal Endangered; FT — Federal Threatened; MMA Protected under the Marine Mammal Act.
'HPC 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 area. 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.
'CE— Califomia Endangered; SSC — Species of Special Concern
°Although the California halibut does not have a formal 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.
5Currently (10/2008) proposed for federal delisting (FPD).
SOURCE: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (May 9, 2008)
4.7.2 Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the State CECA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect
on the environment if the project is likely to:
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.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -195 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -10
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including
protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.).
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.
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.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
4.7.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.7 -1 The project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05,
which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line
without a sportfishing license.
SC 4.7 -2 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.
4.7.4 Potential Impacts
4.7.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed building would occur well above any federally protected wetlands. As
indicated in Section 4.6 (Drainage and Hydrology), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) is
required as standard practice (refer to SC 4.6 -1). The SWPPP 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-term construction occurring on the site will not impact Newport Bay.
Terrestrial Habitat/Species
Noise levels at the project site due to construction activities would increase temporarily over existing ambient
levels during the development of the proposed project. During construction, temporary noise has some
potential to affect foraging and roosting activities, specifically for avian species. Although this is a temporary
impact to such species, it is considered to be less than significant since noise levels would return to pre -
construction levels at the completion of the proposed project.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -11
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Project - related construction activities associated with the new dock would not result in significant short- or
long -term effects on the brown pelican, which does not nest in the harbor. This species feeds throughout
the harbor and often rests on pilings, boat floats, floating docks, and docks. Even if pelicans were
temporarily disturbed by construction activities, including dredging operations, the potential effect
represents an insignificant amount of available feeding area in the harbor. Pelicans have many
alternative areas for undisturbed roosting within the harbor. Temporary impacts to the brown pelican
would, therefore, be considered less than significant. Furthermore, the project site is not designated as a
critical habitat for any wildlife species and is not located within an NCCP area.
Marine Habitat/Species
Impacts to Eelgrass
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. 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 eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -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.
4.7.4.2 Long - Operational Impacts
Terrestrial Habitat/Species
Vegetation Impacts
Current project design features avoid the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the north side
of the project site that extends into Newport Harbor. However, within the current development footprint
there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine special status plants listed in Table 4.7 -1. It is possible
that future redevelopment of the subject property as proposed could adversely affect one or more special
status plant species, should they exist on the site. The CMP includes several measures that will be
implemented as part of the project to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other
terrestrial biological resources are avoided. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property
and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under
Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code must be obtained. The measures prescribed in the CMP
include:
A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for active nests of covered
species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions
are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre- construction survey,
the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -12
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California
Fish and Game Code.
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.
A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for
the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the
appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow
CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are
impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the
Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit.
As indicated above, implementation of these project features will ensure that the coastal bluff habitat is
enhanced with native plant species and that potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant species as well
as introduced non - native species of trees that may support avian species and nests will not occur.
Wildlife Impacts
Potential impacts to common wildlife species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each
species occurring or potentially occurring at the project site. Development of the project would not result
in significant impacts to common wildlife species currently or potentially utilizing the project site.
Temporary disturbance impacts, as previously described, would occur for roosting birds (e.g., cormorants,
gulls, pelicans) on t he existing dock until the new dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to
the project site may also experience temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built.
Terns, skimmers, and rails are located in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by the proposed
project.
Night lighting could degrade adjacent natural open space areas for wildlife by increasing predation and
deterring animals from using an area. Lighting of the proposed project would result in an indirect effect
on the behavior patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at down and dusk) avian species in the
vicinity of the project site. Of greatest concern is the effect on birds that roost at the existing dock and on
owls that are specialized night foragers. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce
any current wildlife population below self- sustaining levels. Therefore, the project - related impacts
associated with night lighting would be considered less than significant.
Increased human disturbance resulting from project implementation is not expected to significantly disrupt
normal foraging behavior of wildlife (e.g., birds) utilizing Newport Bay. The project site is currently
occupied and human activity currently occurs along the small beach located at the project site.
Development of the project would increase the human activity by increasing the number of people
residing at the site when compared to the present; however, this increase in human activity would not be
expected to result in the reduction of any current wildlife population in the project environs and, in
particular, to below self- sustaining levels. Therefore, the potential impacts anticipated as a result of the
long -term human occupation of the site would be less than significant.
Wetlands
The 190 square foot area identified on the bluff below the building pad does not meet the criteria for either
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or California Department of Fish and
Game (Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). Further, given the clear and demonstrable lack
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -13
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a
highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of its occurrences, no
portion of the site is considered a wetland under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, project
implementation will not result in any potential impacts to wetlands.
Shade /Shadow Study
A shade /shadow study was undertaken to illustrate the potential effects of shading that may occur under the
proposed deck at the first floor level of the proposed multiple - family residential structure. The study
determined that the angle of the sun at the summer solstice on June 21 (i.e., the day of the year when the
angle of the sun compared to the site would be the greatest) would be 78 degrees. On the December 21
winter solstice (i.e., when the sun's angle is the lowest), the sun's angle is only 33 degrees. As illustrated in
Exhibit 4.7 -1, the potential shading effect caused by the extension of the deck over the bluff would be the
greatest; it would be least during the winter, when the sun's angle is lower, which allows sunlight to reach
farther under the proposed deck. The potential shading created by the deck could affect the plants that exist
on the bluff at the present time. However, the project will result only in the removal of introduced, non-
native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff. Nonetheless,
in order to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the vegetation, only species that can tolerate the
sunlight/shade conditions that would be anticipated as a result of project implementation are proposed to be
planted in that area.
Marine Habitat/Species
Impacts to Eelgrass
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 following analysis.
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 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 drilled into the rock. Implementing turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g.,
silt curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile
emplacement activities.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -14
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
SUMMER SOLSTICE
(JUNE 21)
WINTER SOLSTICE
(DEC 21)
NEWBPPORT
SECTION A NOTTOSCALE
SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture
(50.7')
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -15
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
T.O.SLAB= 53.50'
COMMON REC.
POOL
Exhibit 4.7 -1
Potential Shadow Effects
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
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 concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat
that is actually affected by long -term 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 stipulated in the CMP, which
will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. Specifically, the following measures will be
undertaken as identified in the CMP (refer to Section 7.3 — Environmental Protection) to ensure that
potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.
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 taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements.
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).
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.
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 construction
activities.
• The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of
construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists.
• Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during
tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within
eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity.
• Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -16
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
Eelgrass 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
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 Invertebrates
There are no federally or state - listed sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area.
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. Sand dollar populations in the cove are considered to
be unique intertidal populations. Although no level of protection is afforded sand dollars, the population in
the cove is unique in that it represents a "throwback" to conditions that previously existed in the bay.
Sand dollars do not exist in large numbers elsewhere in the bay. The sand grain size and wave action in
the intertidal area below the bluff create conditions that are conducive to the persistence of this species in
that location. If the sand dollar population that exists in the cove is removed, it is unlikely that it would
reestablish itself at another site because similar conditions do not exist elsewhere in the bay.°
The channel nassa snail (Nassarlus fossatus) and the purple olive snail (Olivella biplicata), 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 sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site
marine resources. However, as prescribed in SC 4.7 -1, the restriction prescribed by the CDFG that
prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect
marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these
species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment and
future residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to ensure its long -term protection. As
a result, potentially significant impacts to the sand dollar colony can be avoided. To ensure that project -
related impacts to these and other intertidal marine resources will be avoided, the CMP specifies several
project elements /measures to be implemented, including:
Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and
construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds
and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting
signage at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway stating
that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape
to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and
(c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove..
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.
° Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist; Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Telephone conversation on October 2 2008.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -17
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biolovical Resources
Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated
walkway, which state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction.
In addition, yellow tape shall be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to
the water or rocky shorelines within the cove.
A silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the
construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is
observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re-
positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles
will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of
sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes.
Silt curtains will be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period
of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of
the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain will be immediately placed
in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated.
Debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily
basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts,
concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to
the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor
following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed.
The project marine biologist will perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs
and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction.
Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to
map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre -
construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar
beds within the cove.
Impacts to Fishes
The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries
Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibaldi 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.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -18
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources
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 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 birds 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.
Migration Corridors
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.
Regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Programs
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 HAPCs 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
have been evaluated. Where potential impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are identified
and prescribed below.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -19
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Consistency with Natural Resources Element
section 4.7— Biolooical Resources
As acknowledged in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, Newport harbor is
home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species and also
provides the public with recreational boating opportunities. Therefore, the City has placed a high priority on
the protection of the biological resources, including both habitat and species and to continue to serve the
needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between the uses within Newport
Harbor. The City adopted several policies that apply to future development within the City. Table 4.1 -1 In
Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable
policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a
summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant
policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP.
4.7.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the project elements prescribed in the Construction Management Plan will ensure that
potentially significant impacts to both terrestrial and marine resources are avoided. As a result, no significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
4.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
As indicated above, implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that the impacts to
terrestrial and marine biological resources are avoided. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will
remain if these measures are implemented.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.7 -20
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Section 4.8 — Public Health and
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in
May, 2005. In addition, 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. The assessment
presented in this section of the document summarizes the findings and recommendation of those
documents. These documents are on file with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.
4.8.1 Existing Conditions
On -Site Conditions
Records Search
The Phase I ESA included a summary of the review of records maintained by local, state and federal
agencies as well as an on -site inspection. Based on information obtained for the Phase I ESA, the subject
site and adjacent properties were not found on the Standard Environmental Record sources required to be
reviewed under ASTM Standard E1527 -00, including but not limited to the those identified in Table 4.8 -1
Table 4.8 -1
Standard Environmental Records Sources
Database Reviewed
Responsible Ageney
Search Radius
(Miles)
National Priorities List (NPL)
U.S. EPA
1.0
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System
CERCLIS
U.S. EPA
0.5
Sate-equivalent CERCLIS
Cal EPA
1.0
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA
U.S. EPA
Adjacent Properties
Emergency Response Notification System ERNS
U.S. EPA
Subject Site
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
LUST
SWRCB /RWQCB
0.5
Underground Storage Tank UST
Cal EPA
Adjacent Properties
Solid Waste Information System SWIS
CIWMB
0.5
SOURCE: P &D Consultants (May 26, 2005
Based on the records review, it was determined that the property was a vacant lot until approximately 1949
when the apartment building at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue was constructed. The building originally had
13 units; however, it was expanded to 14 units. The residence at 207 Carnation Avenue was constructed in
1955. Evidence of hazardous materials usage, or of practices or conditions of environmental concern were
not discovered. Further, the Orange County Health Care Agency, which is the Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA) for the project site, did not have records indicating that hazardous materials had been stored
on the property nor that events of environmental concern had affected the site.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Asbestos - Containing Materials (ACM)
Section 4.8 — Public Health and
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 4.8 -2 contain detectable amounts of
asbestos and are considered to be ACM.
Table 4.8 -2
ACM Summary
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
asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that
potential health risks are reduced to an acceptable level.
Lead -Based Paint (LBP)
As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildin�q
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 4.8 -3 summarizes the lead -
based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -2
Material
Location of
Quantity
Friable
Percent
Building
Description
Suspect Materials
(YIN)
Asbestos
Throughout all
4 % -12%
Various 9 "x9" Vinyl
floors under carpet
Chrysotile in
Floor Tile and
and flooring,
8,000 SF
N
tile
Associated Mastic
excluding
°
0% 2/°
201 -207
bathrooms
Chrysotile in
Carnation Avenue
mastic
Throughout
<1%
Window Putty
storage window
200 LF
N
exteriors
Chrysotile
Roof Patch
Throughout roof
Not
N
5%
Penetration Mastic
penetrations
Quantified
Chrysotile
'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
asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that
potential health risks are reduced to an acceptable level.
Lead -Based Paint (LBP)
As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildin�q
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 4.8 -3 summarizes the lead -
based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.8 -3
LBP Summary
Section 4.8 — Public Health and
Structure
Location
Member
Paint
Condition
Substrate
Paint Color
Lead
Concentration
m /cmZ
Doors
Exterior
Jambs
F-1
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
Courtyard
N/A
I — F
Metal
White
5.1-6.7
Wall
207 Exterior
N/A
I
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 painted /finished 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 risk would be avoided.
Off -Site Conditions
Several properties located within one -half mile of the subject site appear on one or more of the lists provided
by various government agencies. As indicated in Table 4.8 -4, five commercial establishments exist within
one -half mile of the subject property that utilize hazardous materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Table 4.8-4
Results of Database Review
Section 4.8— Public Health and
Property Name
Distance
And Address
feet
Database(s)
Comments
North Beach Coastal
2,100 feet northeast/
Release of gasoline to soil
1901 Bayside Drive
downgradient
LUST
only; closed 1998; low risk
to property.
Release of gasoline that
Shell Service Station
2,100 feet northeast/
LUST
affected groundwater;
2801 Coast Highway
upgradient
closed 1991; low risk to
property.
Doud Commercial Office
2,200 feet east)
LUST
Release of gasoline to
unstated media; closed
3100 Coast Highway
upgradient to crossgradient
1985; low risk to property.
Chevron Service Station
2,500 feet northeast/
Haznet, LUST,
Release of gasoline to soil
only closed 1996; low risk
2546 Coast Highway
upgradient
Cortese
to property.
SOURCE: P &D Consultants (May 26, 2005
4.8.2 Significance Criteria
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of
the following occurs as a result of project implementation.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
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.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.6-4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8 - Public Health and Safety
4.8.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.8 -1 The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses within the project site
to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the
transport, storage, use and /or disposal of hazardous materials on the site.
4.8.4 Potential Impacts
4.8.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials
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 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.
As indicated in Table 4.8 -2, a total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site
inspection. These materials, which contain detectable amounts of ACM that could be potentially
hazardous if not properly removed, must be properly removed by a licensed and Cal /OSHA registered
asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable
regulations. The LBP survey (refer to Table 4.8 -3) concluded that no immediate response action is
necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Nonetheless, similar to ACM removal,
implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be
avoided.
4.8.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts
Create a sign cant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials
Project implementation includes the activities associated with site preparation and construction of a
structure that contains eight condominium units and the continued long -term use of the site for residential
development, which does not typically involve the use and /or transport of hazardous materials and other
substances that would represent a hazard in the community. Although some fertilizers, herbicides,
cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides would be utilized on -site, such materials are of the household
variety and do not pose a significant health hazard or risk. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -5
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8— Public Health and Safety
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
As indicated above, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM
were observed to be in good condition and although they do not pose a significant health and safety
concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state, they must be properly removed prior to
demolition of the existing structures. 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, any potentially
significant health hazard to either the public or environment would reduced to a less than significant level
as a result of the proper removal of those contaminants.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
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 East Coast Highway (SR -1) and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on
the site. Although the proposed 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.
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
As indicated in Section 4.8.1, P &D Consultants conducted a Phase I ESA on the site, including both
records and literature searches as well as a site survey conducted on the property. Based on the results
of the Phase I ESA, the subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further,
there is no evidence of either on -site or off -site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site
development. No historical recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the
property. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport
The subject property is located approximately five miles southeast of John Wayne Airport. As such, the
site is not located within the limits of the JWA land use plan or other public airport or private landing strip.
Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private aviation facility is located within two
miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including
safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a
result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 4.8 — Public Health and
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan
The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan that designates procedures
to be followed in case of a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency
response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters,
including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents,
civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. The project site is not designated for emergency use
within the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The primary concern of the Safety Element and the City
Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to
potentially severe seismic shaking or fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements
will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The proposed
development is not located within a flood hazard area. Development of the subject property as proposed
will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning
program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not
physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a
result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required.
4.8.5 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.8 -1 Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing residential
structures occupying the site, which would affect materials that contain detectable
amounts of ACM.
MM 4.8 -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.
Impact 4.8 -2 Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing residential
structures occupying the site. Several building 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.
MM 4.8 -2 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 measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process.
4.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the standard condition and mitigation measures prescribed by the City and other regulatory
agencies having jurisdiction will ensure that potential hazardous conditions would be avoided or would be
reduced to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated as a
result of project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.8 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10— Cultural Resources
4.10 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), conducted a records search for both cultural and paleontological resources
associated with the subject property. The 2005 report, entitled, 'Results of Cultural and Paleontological
Resources Records Search for the Carnation Villas Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County,
California,' was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., is available for review at the City of Newport Beach.
4.10.1 Existing Conditions
Historical Resources
The project site is currently developed with a multiple family structure containing 14 dwelling units. The
existing building was constructed in 1949. In addition, a single - family residence constructed in 1955 also
exists on the subject property. The records search conducted by LSA included a review of 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
to determine if either of these structures has been identified in those databases and /or if other historic
resources are located within one mile of the subject property. Neither structure is listed on a Federal,
State or local historical resource inventory.
Archaeological Resources
A cultural resources records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System, located at California State University Fullerton. The
records search included a one -mile radius from the project site. In addition to the records, LSA completed
an archaeological survey of the site . Based on that survey, no archaeological sites were identified; the
survey concluded that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the
disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions.
Paleontological Resources
The project site is located along the eastern margin of the entrance channel to Newport Bay. Review of the
topography of the project area, a historic soils map, and current geological mapping of the area demonstrate
that the project area is located on the Monterey Formation (Miocene, Marine), topped by flat terraces at about
100 feet above mean sea level, carved by the Terrace 1 stage sea (i.e., 80,000 years before present).
Terrace 1 sediments are known to contain Rancholabrean terrestrial and marine vertebrates within the
project vicinity. The Monterey Formation, which forms the bluff sediments, is known to contain abundant
marine invertebrates and vertebrates (primarily fish). There are many recorded fossil localities in similar
sediments in the immediate vicinity of the project area. As such, the project area should be considered to
have a high paleontological sensitivity.
4.10.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed project would result in
a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Public Resources Code (PRC) §15064.5.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
W1031
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10 — Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to PRC §15064.5.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
4.10.3 Standard Conditions
SC 4.10 -1 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that
no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the
permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the
site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification
by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
SC 4.10 -2 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 costs to accession any collections shall be
the responsibility of the project applicant.
4.10.4 Potential Impacts
4.10.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Although potential impacts to cultural and /or scientific (i.e., paleontological) resources may occur during the
construction phase of the proposed project, potential impacts are evaluated as potential 'long- term" effects.
Therefore, the potential impacts of project implementation are discussed and evaluated in Section 4.10.4.2.
4.10.4.2 Long - Operational Impacts
Historical Resources
Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the site;
however, because neither structure is recognized either by the City of Newport Beach or the State of
California as an important historic resource, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated
and no mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.10 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmenta
Archaeological Resources
Section 4.10— Cultural Resources
As indicated in Section 4.10.1, 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 and no sides were identified on the subject property. Although project implementation
includes extensive excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed residential structure, 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 past development of 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.
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 representatives requesting
consultation within the 90 -day statutory period. A record of the applicable correspondence is included in
Appendix _.
As discussed in Section 4.10.1, 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. The
NAHC and Native American representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate
prescribed in SB 18. 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. Nonetheless, SC 4.10 -1, which is
mandated by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will ensure that any human remains that may
be encountered during construction will be adequate mitigated.
Paleontological Resources
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. As previously
indicated, the survey concluded that the site should be considered to have a high paleontological
sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. It is likely that sediments
containing fossils will be encountered during construction. Therefore, implementation of SC 4.10 -2 in
accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 will ensure that potential significant impacts to fossils encountered
during grading /excavation activities can be avoided through measures prescribed by the paleontological
monitor. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required.
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 rock outcropping that forms a small cove at the base of the project site. 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 alter the
physical characteristics of the cove. The project will not impact the rock outcropping as construction of
the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock
will occur seaward of the rock outcropping. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur
and no significant impacts are anticipated.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4,10 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
4.10.5 Mitigation Measures
Section 4.10 — Cultural Resources
No significant impacts to cultural or historic resources will occur as a result of project implementation.
Although the Monterey Formation may yield fossils, paleontological monitoring as required by SC 4.10 -2 will
ensure that potential impacts to fossils encountered during grading can be avoided. As a result, no significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
4.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the standard conditions prescribed in Section 4.10 -2 will ensure that the potential
impacts cultural and paleontological resources are avoided. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts
will remain as a result of project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
4.10 -4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0— Impacts Found Not to be Significant
CHAPTER 5.0
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The environmental process requires the Lead Agency for a proposed project, in this case the City of Newport
Beach, to prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which describes the proposed project and summarizes the
potential environmental impacts which could result from the implementation of a proposed project. An
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to assess certain potential impacts associated with this
project. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the supporting documentation for the proposed Aerie
residential project are provided in Appendix A of this EIR. This section summarizes those potential impacts
of the proposed Aerie project that were determined to be below a level of significance.
5.1 Agriculture
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. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site
as "Multiple -Unit Residential (RM)" and "Two Unit Residential (RT) "; the zone designation for the site is
"Multiple Family Residential" and "Two Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for
agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract.
The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as
agricultural land. As indicated above, 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 to agricultural resources are
anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
5.2 Population and Housing
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 9 dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore, site development would result in a decrease
in both the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the site and that could be constructed.
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. The loss of seven (existing)
dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach
because the existing total vacancy rate in the City is estimated to be 10.91 percent. With the exception of
one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and residents of the two
apartment units that are currently occupied, the remaining units are vacant. No replacement housing is
necessary.
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) residing in the
single - family residence and occupants in two of the 14 apartment units. Although these residents would
be displaced by the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequate replacement housing exists
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 5-1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0— Impacts Found Not to be Significant
elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a
result of project implementation.
5.3 Recreation
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.
The project includes private common amenities that will help offset 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 construct new or expand
existing recreational amenities in the City. Furthermore, 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 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 (Section 19.52) 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.
5.4 Mineral Resources
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 to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the
Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally
important mineral resource site. 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 and no
mitigation measures are required.
5.5 Public Services
Fire Protection
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
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 5-2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 — Impacts Found Not to be Significant
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
was 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
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 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
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 two 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 65995 of the California Government Code,
in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the
increased student enrollment associated with new residential development, 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
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.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -195 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 5 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 — Impacts Found Not to be Significant
5.6 Utilities
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.
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 10 -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. 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.
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. 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.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 5 -4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
CHAPTER 6.0
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)
This Section summarizes the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the Aerie
residential project. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
"Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a
level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an
alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding their effect, should be described."
6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Although the project will comply with the City's Noise Control Ordinance and will incorporate project
features included in the Construction Management Plan, including the preparation of a construction
schedule that minimizes potential construction noise impacts, which have been prescribed to further
reduce construction noise during the length construction phase, the short -term noise impacts identified
below will remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.4 -1 Noise levels associated with construction equipment will result in periodic
substantial increases above ambient noise levels during the construction phase
anticipated for the proposed project.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 6 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 7.0 — Irretreivable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources
CHAPTER 7.0
IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
Approval and implementation of the proposed Aerie project that would allow for the conversion of the existing
single- and multiple - family residential development on the 1.4 -acre site to an 8 -unit condominium
development will require the commitment of a relatively small amount of additional energy resources (e.g., oil,
gas, diesel and related petroleum products) on a daily basis since the nature of the project does not
encompass construction activities that result in the commitment of building supplies. Further, no
development is proposed that would significantly affect biological, cultural /scientific, mineral, or other valuable
resources. Therefore, there would only be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline
and diesel fuel for the operation of landfill equipment. Because these types of resources are available in
sufficient quantities in this region and the proposed projects encompass a very limited scope, these impacts
are not considered significant.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 7 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0— Growth - Inducing Impacts
CHAPTER 8.0
GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS
8.1 Definition of Growth - Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe the potential growth inducing impacts of a proposed project.
Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states:
"Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic development or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.... Also discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage
and facilitate other activities that could substantially affect the environment, either individually or
cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial,
detrimental or of little significance to the environment."
Normally to assess whether the proposed project may foster spatial, economic or population growth,
several questions are considered:
Would the proposed residential project result in the removal of an impediment to growth
such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to
an area?
Would the proposed residential project result in economic expansion or growth such as
changes in the revenue base or employment expansion?
Would the proposed residential project result in the establishment of a precedent setting
action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment
approval?
Would the proposed residential project result in development or encroachment in an
isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area
that is already largely developed?
8.2 Analysis of Growth - Inducing Impacts
Potential project - related growth- inducing impacts related to each of the questions cited above are
discussed below.
Would the proposed residential project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as
the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area?
As indicated previously, the proposed project is located in an area of the City where all of the essential
public service and /or utilities and other features exist. Further, the existing public facilities and services,
including police and fire protection services, sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities (as mitigated),
and parks and recreational facilities, are adequate to serve the proposed Aerie project. Although the
project includes the upsizing of the catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard, that facility is
currently deficient and the upsizing is intended only to accommodate the existing development (including
the proposed Aerie project) in the drainage area. This is due largely to the fact that the proposed use of
the site will remain virtually the same (i.e., multiple - family residential). As a result, there would not be any
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 - 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 8 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 — Growth- Inducing Impacts
significant new demands that would result in the necessity to expand an existing service or create a new
service, which would eliminate an existing impediment to growth.
Would the proposed residential project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes
in the revenue base or employment expansion?
Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant economic growth or expansion in
either the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange or larger southern California region. Although a
number of short-term, construction- related jobs would be created by the demolition of the existing
structures and the demolition and construction of the proposed 8 -unit project and docks, project
implementation would not result in the creation of any long -term employment opportunities. The
proposed project constitutes "in fill" development or redevelopment of a site that is currently developed.
The proposed residential development would replace the existing uses at a lower density. Therefore, no
significant growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project are anticipated.
Would the proposed residential project result in the establishment of a precedent setting action
such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval?
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). The City's General Plan was updated in 2006. Although a change to the land
use adopted for the site is proposed, that change would affect only 584 square feet of the property.
Moreover, the project applicant is proposing a reduction in the intensity of development that is permitted
on the site from approximately 9 residential dwelling units to only eight dwelling units. The proposed
project is, therefore, consistent with the land use and intensity of development permitted by the long -
range plans adopted for the project by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, approval of the proposed
amendments and other related discretionary actions that comprise project approval will not set a
precedent in the use of the site.
Would the proposed residential project result in development or encroachment in an isolated or
adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already
largely developed?
Generally, growth- inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated,
undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer
and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the "premature" or unplanned growth in
an area not planned for development (i.e., "leap frog" development). The subject property is a developed
site located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach (Corona del Mar). As such, it is
important to note that the proposed development will not remove an obstacle to population growth since
the project site is located in an area that is urbanized. As indicated above, all of the essential
infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities (with mitigation), electricity and
natural gas, and related utilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion, which
will not result in significant increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth -
inducing impacts are anticipated
8.3 Conclusion
The answer to each of the questions cited above as they relate to the proposed Aerie residential project is
"no." The proposed project includes only the conversion of an existing higher intensity residential
development to a less intensively development residential property. The proposed project is not
characterized by features that attract or facilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be
considered growth inducing. Conventionally, growth inducement is measured by the potential of a project or a
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 8 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 — Growth - Inducing Impacts
project's secondary effects (i.e. provision of new infrastructure which supports housing or creation of jobs) to
facilitate development of housing. Since the proposed conversion of the site to a less dense residential
development that facilitates the efficient use of the subject site through the incorporation of "green"
technology, the standard variables associated with the development of housing, commercial or industrial land
uses do not apply very well. Further, with only one exception, all of the infrastructure that exists in the project
area is adequate to provide an adequate level of service, including sewer, and water. However, as previously
indicated, one catch basin that is currently deficient must be upgraded to adequately accommodate the
existing surface runoff. Project implementation will not result in any significant direct or indirect addition of
residential development that would generate new residents or employment that would be an "attractor" of
residents to the area that are not already anticipated in the General Plan. The site is not located in an
isolated area that is constrained by the absence of infrastructure where the provision of infrastructure would
promote further development. None of the accepted standards that distinguish growth- inducing projects
characterize the proposed project; therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a
result of project implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 8 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts
CHAPTER 9.0
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as:
"...two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts"
Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as:
"(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present
and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time."
Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting
from a single project or from a number of projects. A cumulative impact refers to the degree of change in the
environment resulting from a particular project, plus the incremental impacts created by other closely related
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts may reveal that relatively
minor impacts associated with a particular project may contribute to more significant impacts when
considered collectively with other projects taking place over a period of time.
9.2 Cumulative Projects
Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for considering potentially significant
cumulative adverse impacts. This analysis can be based on either:
"(A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which
described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative
impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public
at a location specified by the lead agency."
For the cumulative analysis presented below, with the exception of air quality impacts, which are based upon
development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, the potential environmental effects of the proposed
Aerie project were considered in conjunction with the potential environmental effects of the development of
other closely related past, present, and probable future projects in the City, which are listed in Table 9 -1.
Although there may be other projects occurring within the City, those identified in Table 9 -1 reflect the
projects with similar potential impacts as the proposed project. This geographic limitation is appropriate
because the proposed project is small in size and is not likely to have significant regional environmental
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts
consequences. Furthermore, the project site is located in the center of the Newport Beach and not near the
border of a neighboring jurisdiction. Therefore, Table 9 -1 reflects a geographic limitation to projects located
within the City of Newport Beach. Finally, the related projects list is not limited to multiple- family residential
projects like the proposed project; it includes a variety of approved and proposed land uses, including
institutional, commercial, municipal, and mixed -use projects that vary in size.
Table 9 -1
Related Projects List
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -2
Potential
Cumulative
Name /Address
Permit No.
Status
Description
Impacts
Approved Projects w /Environmental Clearance
General Plan Amendment, Planned
Community Development Plan
Amendment, Development Agreement
Hoag Hospital Master Plan
PA2007 -073
ApprovedlMay 2008
Amendment to reallocate up to
Air Quality
225,000 gross square feet of unbuilt,
permitted floor area from the Lower
Campus to the Upper Campus
Use permit for a full- service, high -
Paninl CafB
PA2007 -063
MND
tumover eating and drinking
Traffic
2421 Coast highway
Approved June 2008
establishment, including a 160 square
Air Quality
foot outdoor dining area.
Installation of 37 new square, concrete
plies to provide 33 slips of various
Lido Anchorage
PA 2007 -121
Approved September
sizes. The floating docks, fingers, and
Biological
151 Shipyard Way
2008
gangways will result in approximately
Resources
24,043 square feet of overwater
coverage.
MND
Construction of a new 42,230 square
Oasis
PA2008 -109
Approved December
feet Oasis Senior Center facility on the
Traffic
800 Marguerite Avenue
2008
current site located on the comer of
Air Quality
Marguerite Avenue and Fifty Avenue.
Pending Projects that R uire Review
Planned Community Text Adoption for
PC-47 (Newport Country Club),
Development Agreement, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map for the
Newport Beach Country
development of 5 semi-custom single -
Club
PA2005 -140
Applied 2005
family residential units, 27 hotel units
Traffic
1600 East Coast Highway
Pending
with a 2,048 - square foot concierge and
Air Quality
guest center, a new 3,523 square foot
tennis club with a 6,718 square foot
spa, a 41,086 square foot golf club
with accessory facilities, 8 tennis
courts, and a swimming pool.
Expansion of the existing Hyatt
Regency Hotel by adding 88 new
timeshare units, a timeshare
clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a
Hyatt Regency
PA2005 -212
Applied 2005
new spa facility, a new housekeeping
Traffic
1107 Jamboree Road
Pending EIR
and engineering buildings, and a new
Air Quality
two-level parking garage. Project
implementation requires a Use Permit,
Development Agreement, parcel Map,
and Modification Permit.
Applied 2007
Megonigal Residence
PA 2007 -133
Pending EIR
Three -story single - family residence
Aesthetics
2333 Pacific Drive
Preparation
with attached garage.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental
9.0 — Cumulative
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -3
Potential
Cumulative
Name /Address
Permit No.
Status
Description
Impacts
Proposed Airport Business Area
Integrated Conceptual Development
Conexant Conceptual Plan
Plan which would include a total of up
4311/4321 Jamboree Road
Applied 2007
to 974 new residential units, 714 on
Kell Conceptual Plan
PA2007 -170
CC Hearing February
the Conexant site and the remaining
Air Quality
4343 Von Kerman Avenue
2009
260 on the Koll property. The City has
not yet approved the Airport Business
Area Integrated Conceptual
Development Plan.
Proposed 1.9 -acre subdivision to crate
Big Canyon
Applied 2007
a large lot for one residential dwelling
1 Big Canyon Drive
PA2007 -210
CC Headng February
unit. Parcel Map, General Plan
None
2009
Amendment, and Big Canyon Planned
Community text amendment.
A public park and beach with
recreation facilities, restrooms and a
new Girl Scout House, a public short-
Marina Park
PA2008 -040
Applied 2008
term visiting vessel marina with a
Biological
1700 W. Balboa Boulevard
public dock and a sailing center and a
Resources
new community center with
classrooms, boat storage space and
ancillary offices ace.
A 402.3 -acre planned community
development plan consisting of a
maximum of 1,375 dwelling units,
Newport Banning Ranch
PA2008 -114
Applied 2008
75,000 square feet of commercial
Traffic
5200 West Coast Highway
retail, 75 room boutique hoteirbed-
Air Quality
and - breakfast' or other overnight
accommodation, parks and open
space.
Use Permit and Modification Permit to
Silk Residence Remodel
PA2008 -180
Zoning Administrator
allow 50 % -70% structural alterations to
None
1800 Bay Front Street
Hearing January 2009
a non - conforming structure and
multiple setback encroachments.
Harbor Resources Division
Replacement of Bay Island bridge,
replacement of bulkhead walls on the
Bay Island
northern, western and southern sides,
Biological
and installation of a small submerged
Resources
sand retention wall on the west side for
beach stabilization.
Construction of new 8' x 100' floating
guest dock at the terminus of Rhine
Biological
Rhine Wharf Guest Dock
Wharf adjacent to Lido Park Drive,
Resources
including a 4' x 80' ramp and
emplacement of several guide piles.
Replacement of existing bulkhead
along approximately 485 feet of
waterfront, reconfiguration of the
Biological
Etco Properties
existing 21 -boat slip marine, and
Resources
remediation of contaminants located in
sediment near and within the boat
slipways.
Addition of extensions to floats at the
1 e Street Public Pier
15" Street public pier to accommodate
Biological
the demand for dinghy tie -ups in the
Resources
area.
Addition of extensions to floats at the
19" Street Public Pier
le Street public pier to accommodate
Biological
the demand for dinghy tie -ups in the
Resources
area.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -3
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts
9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The impact analysis that follows provides a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts that might occur as
a result of project implementation. Potential cumulative impacts associated with some environmental issues
are evaluated based on a particular geographic area or other appropriate level. For example, unlike the other
impact areas discussed in Chapter 9.0 that are base don Table 9 -1, cumulative air quality impacts are
assessed based on development within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that spans several
counties. Conversely, cumulative noise impacts are evaluated within the context of a smaller geographic
area. Construction noise and some operational noise impacts are limited to the project site and adjacent and
nearby areas; however, depending on the contribution of project - related traffic, mobile- source noise impacts
may occur beyond the immediate limits of the subject site along heavily traveled arterials. Similarly,
cumulative biological impacts are evaluated based on similar habitat and species within a particular
geographic area. For instance, in the case of the proposed project, the discussion of potential cumulative
marine biology impacts (e.g., eelgrass) is limited to Newport Harbor.
It is also important to note that cumulative impact analyses are guided by standards o reasonableness and
practicality. As a result, the following analysis is less extensive than that provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft
EIR.
9.3.1 Land Use and Planning
The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence with an 8-
unit condominium structure. The area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and
multiple - family residential development. As a result, no design component or feature of the project would
physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition,
the subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of
Orange. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native
species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -4
Potential
Cumulative
NamefAddress
Permit No.
Status
Description
Impacts
Addition of extensions to floats at the
Fernando Street Public Pier
Fernando Street public pier to
Biological
accommodate the demand for dinghy
Resources
be-ups in the area.
Projects Submitted for Plan Check
Common addition and remodel
Traffic
2300 West Coast Highway
1580 -2008
(29,199 square feet existing, 10,390
Air Quality
square feet new) Holiday Inn.
606 Marigold Avenue
1731 -2006
New duplex (2,946 square feet with
None
attached 309 square foot garage).
901 Newport Center Drive
1733 -2008
New Retail (140,745 square feet
Traffic
Nordstrom shell).
Air Quality
New single- family residence (2,941
1506 South Bay Front
1773 -2008
square feet with 407 square foot
None
attached garage).
New single - family residence (2,679
1708 South Bay Front
1981 -2008
square feet with 400 square foot
None
garage and 671 square foot deck).
New single - family residence (2,864
824 West Bay Avenue
2114 -2008
square feet with 499 square foot
None
garage).
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach
9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The impact analysis that follows provides a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts that might occur as
a result of project implementation. Potential cumulative impacts associated with some environmental issues
are evaluated based on a particular geographic area or other appropriate level. For example, unlike the other
impact areas discussed in Chapter 9.0 that are base don Table 9 -1, cumulative air quality impacts are
assessed based on development within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that spans several
counties. Conversely, cumulative noise impacts are evaluated within the context of a smaller geographic
area. Construction noise and some operational noise impacts are limited to the project site and adjacent and
nearby areas; however, depending on the contribution of project - related traffic, mobile- source noise impacts
may occur beyond the immediate limits of the subject site along heavily traveled arterials. Similarly,
cumulative biological impacts are evaluated based on similar habitat and species within a particular
geographic area. For instance, in the case of the proposed project, the discussion of potential cumulative
marine biology impacts (e.g., eelgrass) is limited to Newport Harbor.
It is also important to note that cumulative impact analyses are guided by standards o reasonableness and
practicality. As a result, the following analysis is less extensive than that provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft
EIR.
9.3.1 Land Use and Planning
The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence with an 8-
unit condominium structure. The area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and
multiple - family residential development. As a result, no design component or feature of the project would
physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition,
the subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of
Orange. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native
species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -4
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts
site. Therefore, no impacts wither to CSS habitat or to the coastal California gnatcatcher would occur as a
result of project implementation.
The proposed project is currently developed and is also identified for development in the adopted long -range
plans for the property. As indicated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the
applicable goals, policies and objectives articulated in the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other
elements as well as the CLUP. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result
of project implementation.
9.3.2 Population and Housing
Although implementation of the proposed project will result in a net reduction in the number of existing
residential dwelling units currently occupying the site and would displace the tenants residing in three
dwelling units, the net reduction in dwelling units would not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of
homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City of Newport Beach. The 14 -unit apartment building
occupying one of the parcels exceeds the permitted development density based on currently regulatory
requirements, which would permit only 9 dwelling units on the combined project site. Together with the
approved and planned development identified in Table 9 -1, a substantial increase in residential development
is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport
area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Megonigal
residence and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, a potentially significant
cumulative reduction of housing within the City would not occur as a result of project implementation. The
existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing; no low- and /or
moderate- income households occupy the site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of project
implementation. Further, once the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are adopted by the City of
Newport Beach, the decrease in the number of dwelling units on the site will not adversely affect the
jobs /housing balance because the project will be consistent with the City's long -range plans, which are the
basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant
cumulative impacts to population and housing.
9.3.3 Geology and Soils
The site is currently developed with 15 single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units on the 1.4 -acre
property. The site and existing development are currently exposed to potential groundshaking associated
with seismic activities occurring on one of the active regional faults. Unlike any of the projects identified in
Table 9 -1, the subject property is located on a bluff in Corona del Mar, which requires the consideration of
unique geologic and seismic characteristics. Although the proposed project will consist of residential
development, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil
conditions will not increase and project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because
the new residential development will be required to meet applicable structural design requirements.
Furthermore, none of the projects identified in Table 9 -1 would contribute cumulatively to bluff instability
and /or erosion because they are not located on the same bluff as the subject property. In addition, these
other developments must also comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the
applicable regulations to ensure that potential loss of life and structural damage is minimized. 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 adverse soils conditions, including lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. Finally, no the site does not support "prime" and /or
"important' agricultural soils. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative seismic, slope failure, bluff
erosion, and /or soil condition impacts would occur as a result of project implementation.
With a small amount (i.e., approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the
proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel
is insignificant. In addition, because the project is located in the down -drift direction of neighboring Channel
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -5
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts
Reef, its potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential.
Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 -foot waves could be experienced at the project site, impacting 30 to 35
boats residing in Newport Harbor, including those proposed for the proposed Aerie project. However, the
City maintains between 80 and 100 mooring cans in the harbor, which are available to the public at any given
time on a "first come, first served" basis. Because the severe conditions that would result in the need to
utilize the mooring cans are infrequent and, further, because up to the City of Newport has indicated that up
to 100 mooring cans are available for temporary mooring within the harbor during these infrequent periods,
no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur.
9.3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Section 4.6, although project implementation would result in a small increase in impervious
area, the post - development peak flow would be reduced when compared to the existing surface runoff
conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cfs emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated, and
discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cis, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently
being discharged. Potential cumulative impacts would be those resulting from other development within the
watershed sub -area; however, no other projects are proposed within the area affected by the proposed
project. Nonetheless, project implementation will result in upgrading the existing deficient catch basin in
Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard to ensure that adequate capacity is provided to accommodate not
only the proposed project but also existing stormwater runoff. In addition, the applicant will be required to
implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements
to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. All of the other projects
identified in this section are located outside the immediate project area. Each of the approved or proposed
projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and
conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non - structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and
avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the WQMP
prepared for the proposed project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the
requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have
been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are
intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and /or maintained. Therefore, project
implementation will result in an overall improvement to hydrology and water quality by upgrading the
stormwater collection facilities that serve the drainage area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in
potentially significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality.
9.3.5 Air Quality
As indicated above, cumulative air quality impacts are those associated with development occurring within
the South Coast Air Basin, a five -county region in southern California. As a result, it is anticipated that a
significant number of development projects throughout the City and the five -county region would contribute to
the cumulative degradation of the air basin. Although the proposed project will result in the generation of both
short-term (i.e., those occurring during the 32 -month construction phase) and long -term operational
emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and stationary sources), which will be
emitted into the air basin, the vast majority of those emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature.
Although the project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short-term and
because the Construction Management Plan will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a
cumulative basis when considered with the other projects in the City and in the air basin. Once construction
is completed, a nominal fraction of the total mobile- source emissions within the basin would be attributed to
the proposed project. The long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project are
the result of the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural
gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions would not exceed significance
thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and identified in Section 4.3.2, the incremental addition of the
project's mobile- source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the development of
the other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be less than significant on a cumulative basis.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -6
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts
9.3.6 Traffic and Circulation
Cumulative traffic impacts are those occurring within the immediate vicinity of the project site and beyond the
Corona del Mar area along Coast Highway and other arterials in the City based on the distribution of
construction traffic associated with the proposed project. As indicated in Table 9 -1, the proposed project and
several of the projects within the City would contribute traffic, both during construction and as a result of their
development, which could affect the existing circulation system, including Coast Highway, Jamboree Road
and Newport Boulevard. As indicated in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), project implementation will
result in the generation of construction traffic (i.e., short-term) as well as an increase in the number of daily
and peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the existing baseline (i.e., occupancy of three units). The
short-term vehicle trips are those associated with heavy trucks (i.e., dirt hauling, equipment and materials
deliveries, etc.) and construction works commuting to the site. However, these will be short-term in nature
and would be minimized through the implementation of the Construction Management Program which,
among other tings, prescribes a haul route and is designed to inhibit on -site queuing. Although other projects
in the City could also contribute construction traffic that could affect roadway and intersection operations, the
contribution of these short-term trips would not represent a potentially significant cumulative impact because
potential impacts would be avoided through specific provisions prescribed in the Construction Management
Plan, including the identification of a haul route plan, adherence to a traffic control plan, limitations on haul
truck arrival /departure, use of flag persons during the construction phases, etc. Implementation of these
measures will ensure that potential cumulative construction impacts would be minimized. Although post -
development project - related vehicle trips would be greater than those generated by the existing residential
development on the site, they would not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts in the Corona
del Mar community or outlying areas because when added to the local circulation system, they would
constitute a very small fraction of the total trips generated by the cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1.
When added to the Citys arterial roadway system, the small increase in both construction- related and
operational vehicle trips would, therefore, not result in potentially significant cumulative traffic and circulation
impacts.
9.3.7 Biological Resources
For the purposes of determining potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, the harbor area was
identified as the geographic "area of potential effect' due to the potential for adversely affecting coastal
biological resources, including eelgrass. Project implementation could result in potential impacts to biological
resources, as indicated in Section 4.7. These impacts include the potential to create both direct impacts,
particularly during construction, and indirect impacts that may include the creation of shadows that could
adversely affect the existing eelgrass bed in the vicinity of the project. However, the proposed project and
other projects proposed within the harbor area listed in Table 9 -1 that have the potential to affect eelgrass are
required by the City to mitigate any potential loss at a ratio of 1.2:1. As indicated in Section 4.7.5, if it is
determined as a result of the pre- and post - construction surveys that eelgrass is impacted, the applicant will
be required to replace it at the specified mitigation ratio. The same or similar measures would be prescribed
for projects located within Newport Bay that have the potential to adversely affect eelgrass as a result of
dredging or other construction and development activities. Similar to the proposed project, other projects in
the harbor that have the potential to impact eelgrass would be subject to the same mitigation measures
prescribed for the proposed project to adequately offset the potentially significant impacts, including pre- and
post - construction surveys, potential replacement of eelgrass, avoidance of the rocky intertidal habitat, use of
silt curtains during construction, and limiting construction to optimal tide conditions. As a result, no potentially
significant cumulative impacts to marine biology would occur.
Other potential impacts to biological resources include effects on the intertidal area as a result of increased
activity in the small cove and potential effects on sensitive plant species that may exist on the site. For
example, important resources (e.g., sand dollars) have been identified in the intertidal area below the bluff
that could be affected by construction activities associated with the construction of the dock. However, in
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -7
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts
each case, mitigation measures have been proposed (e.g., signage, avoidance of the intertidal area during
construction, etc.) that will either eliminate the potentially significant impacts to biological resources or reduce
the impacts to a less than significant level. In the same way, potential impacts to terrestrial species of plants
and /or animals are also addressed through mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.7.5, including the use
of native plant species, which will effectively reduce the impacts to a less than significant level as prescribed
by the Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial
biology would occur.
9.3.8 Mineral Resources
As indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources exist on the
subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Further, project
implementation would not directly impact any existing mineral resource areas either in the City of Newport
Beach, region, or State of California. Similarly, the other approved and /or proposed projects in the City of
Newport Beach listed in Table 9 -1 would not adversely affect mineral resources. With the exception of the
Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which
development is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club,
etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not posses mineral resources. Because project
implementation would not result in any impacts to mineral resources, it would not contribute to the cumulative
loss of such resources in either the City, region, or State of California. Although the proposed project would
require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or
sustainable. Therefore, when compared to other projects in the area, no potentially significant cumulative
impacts to mineral resources will occur.
9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As indicated in Section 4.8, the site has been altered and currently supports urban development (i.e., 15
residential dwelling units), which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations
beyond household variety fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. As previously
evaluated, demolition of the existing residential structures in order to construct the proposed 8 -unit
condominium on the site could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However,
demolition will not only comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements for abating these
components, but appropriate measures have also been identified to ensure that no significant emissions of
potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, those projects listed in Table 9 -1 characterized by ACM
and LBP would also be required to comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements so that no
significant emissions occur. If determined necessary as a result of the environmental analysis conducted for
them, each of the projects would be required to remediate an existing or potential source of contamination.
Finally, like the existing residential development, the proposed project would only use household variety
hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. Therefore,
no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been
approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas.
9.3.10 Noise
Cumulative noise impacts are those that would occur within the immediate project environs, particularly
during the construction phase. The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the
construction phases; however, no other development is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the project
(refer to Table 9 -1) that would contribute to the cumulative increase in noise in the area. As indicated in
Section 4.4, the construction activities resulting from project implementation will result in significant
impacts in the neighborhood. Once construction ceases and the project is completed and occupied, the
cumulative noise environment could also extend beyond the immediate area to outlying areas, depending
on the nature and extent of project - related traffic. The proposed project - related traffic would contribute to
small increases in the ambient noise levels in the nearby residential area within Corona del Mar and
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -8
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts
along arterial roadways in the City. However, project - related long -term noise associated with vehicle trips
generated by future residents would be minimal and would not contribute significantly to the cumulative
increase in long -term noise levels because the project would add only 47 vehicles per day onto the
circulation network. While project - related traffic, when added to existing and traffic utilizing the
neighborhood streets could contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels along the streets, the
increase would not result in significant cumulative long -term noise impacts because none of the local
streets within the project area are characterized by noise levels that current exceed, or are forecast to
exceed, 65 dBA CNEL as indicated in the City's Noise Element, which evaluated future noise levels
based on buildout of the General Plan. It is anticipated that the resulting gradual incremental increase in
project - related traffic onto the neighborhood circulation system would be less than 1 dBA and would,
therefore, generally not be audible. Therefore, no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts would
occur as a result of project implementation.
9.3.11 Public Services
The project site is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by public
services and facilities, including police and fire protection. The replacement of the existing 15 residential
dwelling units with an 8 -unit condominium will not significantly affect the existing public service levels of
service. Specifically, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed project would
not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department or Fire Department from providing an
adequate level of service to the site, even when considering the potential development listed in Table 9 -1,
because the site is currently provided police and fire service. The potential development of the projects listed
in Table 9 -1 would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments to ensure that
adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections identified in
the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate
level of protection. Because the proposed project and the Megonigal property are residential in nature,
project implementation would result in the potential to generate some school -age children, which would
necessitate the payment of the requisite developer fees that offset potential impacts to schools. In addition,
the potential increase in residents generated by these projects could also result in an increased demand for
recreational facilities; however, in the case of the proposed project, on -site recreational amenities are
incorporated into the design of the project to offset the direct demands on such facilities. In addition, the
project applicant will be required to pay in -lieu park fees to further offset any direct or cumulative impacts to
recreational facilities. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that
serve the residents of Newport Beach. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts will occur to
public facilities and services.
9.3.12 Utilities and Service Systems
The site and surrounding area are adequately served by utilities (i.e., sewer and water facilities, solid waste
disposal, electricity and natural gas). At the present time, the existing catch basin located in Carnation
Avenue near Ocean Boulevard does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing storm runoff
within the drainage area; however, project implementation includes the replacementlupsizing of that facility,
which would provide adequate capacity not only to accommodate storm runoff associated with the proposed
project but also runoff associated with the existing development within the drainage area. Furthermore, the
proposed project has been designed to reduce the post - development surface flows emanating from the site
to a level that is less than under existing conditions.
The incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of replacing the older (i.e., 1949 -era) multiple -
family apartment building to a "state -of- the -art" energy efficient development is intended to minimize
demands for energy resources. For instance, the project includes extensive use of "green" technology
intended to reduce demands for energy resources; including gray water retention for property irrigation,
natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics, and
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -9
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts
the use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. Therefore,
no potentially significant cumulative utilities impacts will occur as a result of project implementation.
9.3.13 Aesthetics
As discussed in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), the project site is located in an area of Corona del Mar that is
characterized by important visual resources and /or amenities (e.g., coastal bluff and cove, rock outcroppings,
etc.). In addition, a "Public View Point' is located at the southern property limits on Ocean Boulevard, which
is designated a "Coastal View Road:' The site is also within the viewshed of a Public View Point identified in
the vicinity of Begonia Park. Potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project were evaluated based on
views from both public vantages on or near the site and views to the subject property, including the proposed
dock facility, from the harbor.
Of the cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1, only one project, the proposed Megonigal residence, would
also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the proposed project area. The visual simulations prepared
for the proposed project revealed that no significant project - related impacts would be anticipated, either from
the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard or from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result
of site development as proposed. The potential visual impacts of the proposed project were also evaluated
from four Newport Harbor vantages that include the proposed Megonigal residence to determine the extent of
project - related cumulative visual impacts. As indicated in Exhibit 4.5 -12, construction of the Megonigal
residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean
view, including the project site, from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Aerie project would not
contribute to the cumulative visual impact from this public view location.
Three other visual simulations were also prepared to illustrate the potential cumulative impacts of the
proposed project and the Megonigal residence on Pacific Avenue. Exhibit 5 -1 (Begonia Park Upper Bench),
Exhibit 5 -2 (Begonia Park Lower Bench), and Exhibit 5 -3 (Begonia Park) illustrate views of the proposed
project, including the proposed development of the Megonigal residence at 2333 Pacific Avenue. As
illustrated in each of these simulations, the introduction of the Megonigal residence would affect views from
each of the vantages in the three exhibits. In particular, the Megonigal residence would block a portion of the
harbor area north of the subject property. Although portions of the harbor are visible, views to this area are
"filtered" by intervening landscaping and development. While the views to the harbor from these vantages
would be changed with the development of the Megonigal residence and the proposed project,
encroachment of the proposed project into the viewshed would not be significant on a cumulative basis when
viewed from those locations because the effect on the view in the vicinity of the proposed project, even with
the introduction of the proposed Megonigal residence, would not change significantly. Therefore, no
potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur as a result of project implementation.
None of the related projects identified in Table 9 -1, including the proposed Megonigal residence, would affect
views from the harbor to the existing coastal bluff. Potential visual impacts are not significant from the harbor
area because views from those vantages would be only momentarily affected; none of the visual amenities in
the intertidal area would be destroyed as a result of project implementation. Furthermore, based on the
visual analysis conducted for the proposed project, no potentially significant visual impacts would occur either
to the character of the bluff or the intertidal area, which is characterized by rock outcroppings and a small
cove are located where the dock is proposed, would adversely affect the harbor views to the site. While the
coastal bluff would be altered, the proposed project has been designed to conform to the existing topographic
features and character to minimize visual impacts. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual
impacts would occur.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -10
A
PROJECT SITE
I
49
PROJECT SITE
I
a
D � ,
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
tr R
<1
4
Exhibit 9 -2
Begonia Park - Lover Bench
J � rU •` .
r-
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts
9.3.14 Cultural /Scientific Resources
The site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be
located on the subject property. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development could
result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure
that such impacts are less than significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of
the site for construction, no cultural or historical resources would be affected and no impacts would occur to
such resources. Although paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) may be encountered during construction of
the proposed project based on the geologic formation underlying the site, monitoring will ensure that any
such potential resources that may exist on the property would be identified during the grading phase by the
paleontological monitor. Adequate measures would be implemented to ensure that potentially significant
impacts would be avoided. This would also be true for other projects where encountering such resources is
possible or likely, as prescribed in environmental analysis undertaken for such projects listed in Table 9 -1.
Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts, either individually or on a
cumulative basis.
9.3.15 Recreation
As indicated previously, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing single- and multiple -
family dwelling units with an 8 -unit condominium. Although the generation of additional residents associated
with the projects listed in Table 9 -1 could result in a demand for recreational amenities, project
implementation would not contribute significantly to the cumulative demands crated by those projects due to
the small -scale nature of the project. Furthermore, the proposed project includes private recreational
amenities on -site to accommodate project residents. Nonetheless, the project will be required to comply with
the City's park in -lieu fee requirements as stipulated in the Section 19.52 of the Municipal Code (Park
Dedications and Fees) to ensure that no project - related impacts to recreational facilities occurs. As a result,
no additional significant demands for recreational facilities would be generated by the project that would be
added to the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of other projects proposed and approved in the
City. Other cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1 (e.g., Banning Ranch, Conexant/Koll, etc.) that would
result in significant numbers of new residential dwelling units would also be required by the City to provide
public park dedications and /or payment of park dedication fees to offset any potential demands for
recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no potentially significant project - related or
cumulative impacts to recreational facilities would occur.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 9 -14
Aerie PA 2005496
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0— Aftematives
SECTION 10.0
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 Purpose and Scope
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of "reasonable" alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives.
Section 15126.6(c) directs that the alternatives analyzed by an EIR should be limited to ones that would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant adverse environmental effects of a proposed project.
The discussion of alternatives in this Draft EIR reviews a range of alternatives, including the "No Project'
alternative as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, which satisfies these requirements.
This section analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including
• No ProjecUNo Development
• Alternative Site
• Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences
• Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project
• Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading
10.1.2 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives
Alternatives were selected by the City in consultation with the applicant and the City's environmental
consultant. A range of reasonable alternatives was selected based upon their ability to avoid or reduce
significant environmental impacts of the project and to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives.
With the exception of the No Project alternative, which is required to be included in the evaluation by the
State CEQA Guidelines, and the Alternative Site alternative, each of the alternatives identified above
reflects these criteria and were considered in the EIR. The project objectives are:
To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a
sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design
which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the
harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in
Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project
Objective 4.
2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year
old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design
principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b)
the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape
enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well
as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding
the new wiring.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -1
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Section 10.0 — Alternatives
3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with
an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving,
sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water
quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or
improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable
regulations.
4. To provide amenities commensurate with most new residential development in
comparable baytront locations in the City. Such amenities generally include a dock for
each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities,
such as a swimming pool and fitness center.
5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street
parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit
project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the
number of resident and guest parking required for the project.
6. To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public
vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing
public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view
corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on
Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently
obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead
wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking
fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public
viewing experience.
To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible
development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b)
incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is
within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject
to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern,
organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff,
and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the
bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation.
6. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height
on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards.
10.1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives
According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]), an EIR must "... describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The Guidelines go on to indicate that
alternatives that are capable of substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project must be
examined, "... even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives, or would be more costly." The Guidelines further indicate "... that the range of potential
alternatives to a proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). Thus the ability of an alternative to
attain most of the basic oroiect objectives is central to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed
project.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 - 196 —Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -2
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0—Alternatives
For each alternative, the analysis presented in this section:
Describes the alternative;
Discusses the impacts of the alternative and evaluates the significance of those impacts;
and,
Evaluates the alternative relative to proposed project, specifically addressing project
objectives and the elimination or reduction of potentially significant impacts.
10.1.4 Identification of Impacts
After describing the alternative, this Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the alternative. The major
resource areas included in the detailed impact analysis in Section 4.0 are included in this section. The
potential environmental consequences are identified and described in the analysis for each of the
alternatives identified in Section 10.1.1.
10.2 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration
10.2.1 Alternative Site
As required by the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), only alternative locations that would
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts resulting from project implementation must
be included in the analysis of alternatives. Because the project proposes a multiple - family residential
development with direct access to the harbor on a coastal bluff, a similarly designated site with bay
frontage located on a bluff would be required to accommodate such a project. However, a review of the
City's General Plan revealed that no other similarly situated site that is designated for multiple - family
residential development exists in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, there is no feasible alternative location
for this project that would satisfy the most fundamental of the project objectives, much less most of the
project objectives.
10.3 Analysis of Alternatives
10.3.1 No Project/No Development Alternative
The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuance of
the development currently existing on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published,
.. as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were
not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, this alternative assumes full occupancy
of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence, which represents an increase
in occupancy of 12 units over the baseline condition (i.e., three occupied units). This alternative also
includes the implementation of any deferred maintenance activities (if any). Because the City has
requested that the applicant repair or remove the existing dock due to its present (deteriorated) condition,
the No Project Alternative also includes the replacement of the existing (3 -slip) dock with a new dock in
an identical configuration.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10-3
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
10.3.1.1 Land Use and Planning
Section 10.0 — Alternatives
Although this alternative would result in the continuation of the existing single- and multiple - family residential
use of the subject property, the existing 14 -unit apartment exceeds the maximum density provisions of the
zoning, which limits development to a maximum of 9 dwelling units. The zoning code would permit the non-
conforming density to continue indefinitely unless the owner were to allow the building to become dilapidated,
necessitating the City to declare it a public nuisance and ordering it demolished. The existing project would
continue to conflict with the current development standards related to density and parking, as the building
does not provide parking sufficient to meet current standards. In addition, several components of the
foundation of the existing apartment building extend below the existing 50.7 feet NAVD88 established for the
site by the Newport Beach City Council. Furthermore, the existing development would conflict with many of
the policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan for the Corona del Mar community, which seek to
enhance the character of the area through innovative design and architecture. As a result, the No Project
alternative would result in a "status quo" condition and would not achieve the desired General Plan
objectives.
10.3.1.2 Traffic and Circulation
Implementation of the No Project alternative would virtually eliminate the construction - related impacts
associated with the proposed project and other alternatives evaluated in this section. Specifically, grading
and landform alteration would be eliminated as well as several thousand heavy truck trips and construction
worker trips related to construction of new homes on the subject property. Only nominal construction- related
trips resulting from structural and /or cosmetic improvements would be generated by this altemative. As a
result, the Construction Management Plan developed for the proposed project would not be necessary to
avoid potential impacts anticipated during construction. Long -term project - related trips would be increased
from the existing 23 trips per day from the three occupied units to 104 trips per day when the 15 homes are
occupied. This figure is more than twice the number of daily trips that would be generated by the proposed
project (i.e., 47 trips per day for the 8 proposed condominium units).
10.3.1.3 Air Quality
Although construction - related air emissions would be virtually eliminated when compared to the project -
related construction emissions, mobile source and other operational emissions would exceed those
generated by the proposed project. Although they would remains less than significant, the mobile source
emissions would more than double the emissions resulting from project implementation. In addition, without
the incorporation of "green" technology, including energy- efficient heating and cooling systems, etc., potential
air emissions would also exceed those of the proposed project as energy consumption of the existing 15 units
would exceed that of the proposed 8 -unit project because of the state -of -the art energy- conservation features
that have been incorporated into the proposed project when compared to the older energy - inefficient systems
that currently exist.
10.3.1.4 Noise
Although some construction noise would be generated as a result of structural modifications and cosmetic
upgrades that would be required to implement this alternative, the construction noise levels resulting from
project implementation would be almost entirely eliminated by the No Project alternative. This potentially
significant unavoidable project - related impact would be largely avoided as a result of the No Project
alternative. The increase in long -term, operational noise resulting from increased vehicle trips would be
greater than the proposed project as a result of the increase in daily trips from 47 to 104. However, the
increase would not be significant.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10-4
Aerie PA 2005196
Draft Environmental
10.3.1.5 Aesthetics
Section 10.0 — Altematives
Potential aesthetics impacts associated with this alternative include those related to the age character of the
existing structures. When viewed from locations within Newport Harbor, some foundation elements of the
existing multiple - family structure extend below the PLOED established by the City Council; furthermore, it
does not conform to the existing topographic character of the bluff. When compared to the proposed project,
this alternative would not result in additional encroachment into the viewshed when viewed from either the
harbor or from Begonia Park; however, the aesthetic character of the existing structure(s) and bluff, when
viewed from those vantages (particularly from the harbor), does not reflect the character desired by the City
as articulated in the relevant land use and community design policies articulated in the General Plan. The
repaired or replaced 3 -slip dock would be smaller than that proposed by the applicant. As a result, the
area(s) within the viewshed potentially affected by the dock facility, when viewed from the harbor, would be
reduced when compared to the areas affected by the proposed dock. Similar to the proposed project,
momentary loss of views to aesthetic elements within the cove and bluff area would also occur with the No
Project alternative; however, these potential effects on the aesthetic character of the area, like those
associated with the proposed project, would be less than significant. This alternative would also not result in
enhanced views from the existing Public Viewpoint on Ocean Boulevard or improved views to the north by
creating a view "window" along the northerly property boundary. Finally, the aesthetic benefits to the
neighborhood of undergrounding the overhead utilities would not be achieved.
10.3.1.6 Drainage and Hydrology
As indicated in Section 4.6, an existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard does not
have adequate capacity to accommodate existing pre - project storm flows emanating within the drainage
area. Although implementation of this alternative would not result in an increase in surface runoff when
compared to the proposed project, an integral component of the existing stormwater collection system would
continue to be inadequate to accommodate future storm flows. In addition, this alternative would not include
water quality treatment systems like the proposed project, resulting in no improvement to the surface water
quality before discharging into the municipal collection system and, ultimately, into Newport Bay.
10.3.1.7 Biological Resources
Although no potential impacts would occur to the terrestrial biological resources on the site as a result of the
No Project alternative, enhancement of the existing plants and habitat would not occur. Specifically, no
native plant materials would be incorporated into this alternative and, therefore, no potential benefits of
enhanced habitat would be realized. The reconstruction of a 3 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that
proposed, would result in similar impacts within the harbor and intertidal areas and would necessitate the
implementation of similar measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and
impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be
possible to avoid eelgrass with a smaller dock, due to the proximity of the dock to the existing eelgrass bed in
the harbor, pre- and post- construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential
impacts to, eelgrass.
10.3.1.8 Public Health and Safety
Although some remodeling and cosmetic upgrading of the structures would occur in the No Project
alternative, abatement of the asbestos and lead -based paint detected in the existing buildings may not be
necessary or required because those activities are contingent upon the nature and extent of specific
remodeling that were to occur. In order to avoid LBP and ACM impacts, similar to the proposed project, it
would be necessary to abate the LBP and ACM identified during the investigations conducted for the No
Project alternative.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -5
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
10.3.1.9 Soils and Geology
Section 10.0— Altematives
Because the subject property is located within the seismically active Southern California region, the existing
structures would be subject to moderate to strong seismic groundshaking, similar to the proposed project;
however, because the structures were built in 1949 and in the 1960s, they do not meet current building code
requirements and, therefore, the buildings may not withstand moderate to strong seismic events as well as
the proposed project. This, in turn, may result in significant structural damage and /or loss of life unless the
existing structures are structurally retrofitted to meet current seismic standards. It is anticipated that grading
and /or landform alteration would not occur. Replacement of the 3 -slip dock facility would be exposed to
storm - generated wave conditions; however, like the proposed project, the dock would be constructed based
on the extreme wave conditions forecast for the area.
10.3.1.10 Cultural Resources
No site grading /excavation would be necessary in order to implement the No Project alternative. As a result,
potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project would be avoided,
eliminating the need for mitigation.
Summary of No Project/No Development Alternative
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of the eight objectives
identified for the proposed project. Most importantly, the No Project alternative would not allow
for a state -of- the -art multiple - family residential project and the existing structures will not enhance
the aesthetic character of the community as articulated in several of the General Plan policies.
Furthermore, no private recreational amenities would be provided and it is anticipated that the
existing, energy inefficient structures would continue to consume greater quantities of energy
resources when compared to the proposed project, which has been designed to incorporate
state -of- the -art energy efficient energy systems. Finally, existing views from the important public
vantages would not be enhanced.
Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts
This alternative would eliminate the potentially significant unavoidable adverse construction noise
impact and potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project. It
would also substantially reduce construction traffic and related air emissions when compared to
the proposed project. However, it would not substantially reduce other potential effects, including
hydrology /water quality, biological resources, and operational traffic. The existing catch basin
near the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would not be upgraded, resulting in
the continuation of the stormwater collection deficiency. In addition, without seismic retrofitting
necessary to improve the structural integrity of the existing structures, the buildings and future
residents would be exposed to potential seismic hazards. Finally, abatement of the LBP and
ACM would not be required so future residents could also be exposed to ACM and LBP unless
remediated during the remodeling process.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -6
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Comparative Merits
Section 10.0 — Alternatives
Although this alternative does eliminate the significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impacts
and reduce other potential project- related impacts, several benefits resulting from the proposed project
would not be realized, including the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin,
and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring which are included within the proposed project.
Therefore, this alternative would not provide improved aesthetic character within the Corona del Mar
community as a result of the modem design and architectural character of the project, and the
undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities, enhanced public access through the creation of new on-
street public parking spaces, and improved drainage and water quality as a result of the upgrading of the
existing catch basin. In addition, this alternative does not include enhanced view corridors along Ocean
Boulevard and Carnation Avenue and the No Project alternative does not achieve objectives of the
Newport Beach General Plan and other long -range plans adopted by the City intended improve the
quality of the neighborhood and environment (e.g., improvement stormwater quality, implementation of
.'green" technologies, etc.).
10.3.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative (3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units)
This alternative would result in the subdivision of the existing property into three single - family lots, each of
which would be occupied by one custom residence (refer to Exhibit 10 -1). Each of the three homes
would consist of two above -grade living levels as well as a basement level and a roof deck. The two
residences facing Carnation Avenue might have garages fronting on that street, while the third residence
would likely have subterranean parking accessible via a driveway from Carnation Avenue. Similar to the
proposed project, basement levels of the homes are assumed to "daylight' at 50.7 feet NAVD88, the City
Council- approved predominant line of existing development. Each residence would encompass
approximately 6,900 square feet of living space and a total structural floor area of about 7,700 square feet
(including living space, garages, mechanical spaces, etc.) for a total structural floor area of approximately
23,200 square feet. Although this reduced intensity alternative would reduce the amount of grading
necessary to accommodate the three homes (i.e., 10,000 cubic yards of excavation versus 25,200 cubic
yards for the proposed project), up to 75 caissons would be required to provide the structural integrity of
the three homes. The existing dock would be replaced with a new 3 -slip dock that would accommodate a
40- to 60 -foot boat for each of the three residences. For this alternative, there is no requirement for
implementation of the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or
undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project.
Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits.
10.3.2.1 Land Use and Planning
Implementation of this alternative would not require an amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by
the applicant for the proposed project. The construction of three single - family residential dwelling units on the
consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is
characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The single - family residential
dwelling units proposed in this alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the City's General Plan and CLUP, similar to the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the
site with three homes would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. However, as
identified below, the construction of three homes would likely require individual curb cuts for vehicular access,
resulting in no additional public parking at the curb.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
WIN
r d
r �
s
d
W U �(
�
LL
cn
M
a
LO
0
U
U
L.I.
d
U
z
d
c
c
d
O
C
m
W
D
0
co
U
r�
� m
m
� t
y 1 U
C �
w°
�a
o¢
O
OI
IT
Ga[cio ilva i:W��IDIA�Y.YI T51dG FG'1T'YNHItlG KKfn > »s 6V�YJ V2il2otvAr NOW
.on.al snow a�ari�ox� 32VLL�311H'JL'V 3113NNd3i' NOR18
G
n
°m
WOI
oar
1
m
5iw
.trAt
n�Oa�
nl
I
4
g•o -I
1
Iu
1 "n
HO-AI
SL_= .t__V1_SJ
JJ ��/�
/� /}yn 1I
1
z
—
- -II _iL_ —Sd
dg Ljjj�y,
U
Q
pop
�
1
( .\
0
P
8
n�oV Q 1
W kn
m
10
1
�Q.�Q' c1 I
a
J
` ��FF
�JQx �S
o`
FF
0W
�^
c.
Ho
P
MR
q aO�m�,
J
i
r d
r �
s
d
W U �(
�
LL
cn
M
a
LO
0
U
U
L.I.
d
U
z
d
c
c
d
O
C
m
W
D
0
co
U
r�
� m
m
� t
y 1 U
C �
w°
�a
o¢
O
OI
IT
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives
10.3.2.2 Traffic and Circulation
Development of the subject property with three single - family homes would result in potentially greater
construction traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project. Although this alternative would
necessitate the removal of only 10,000 cubic yards of earth materials (i.e., approximately 3,333 cubic yards
for each home), the construction schedule may likely extend over a substantially longer period of time.
Based on current economic conditions, it is anticipated that each residence would not be constructed until it
has been sold, resulting in a total construction duration of approximately six years (i.e., two years for each
residence), assuming each is built one after the other. During that overall construction schedule, heavy truck
and related vehicle trips would enter and exit the neighborhood similarly to that anticipated by the proposed
project. Although the amount of export materials would be less than the proposed project, resulting in fewer
overall haul truck trips (i.e., approximately 825 trips associated with each home), the potential disruption in
the neighborhood resulting from the construction vehicles entering and exiting the site would occur over a
longer period of time. Once completed, the three dwelling units would generate fewer than 30 vehicular trips
per day and only about three morning and afternoon peak hour trips, which would not significantly affect
traffic either in the neighborhood or on arterial roadways in the area.
10.3.2.3 Air Quality
Potential air quality impacts would be less than significant as a result of the reduction in the amount of
grading that would be necessary to accommodate the three homes. The total number of days, combined
with fewer heavy truck trips (i.e., 1,194 haul trucks and cement trucks) and less export material (10,000 cubic
yards) would account for the reduction in daily emissions associated with the grading operation (i.e., Phase 1)
of this alternative. Although overall construction of this alternative would take approximately six years (i.e.,
two years for each home), the potential air quality impacts associated with subsequent phases (i.e., concrete
construction, framing, and finish) would utilize similar types and numbers of construction equipment as the
proposed project. Therefore, daily construction emissions would be about the same as those estimated for
the proposed project and would be less than significant. Operational emissions, including mobile source
emissions, would also be less than significant due to the reduction in dwelling units that generate fewer trips
when compared to the proposed project. However, the homes in this alternative are less likely to be
designed to be as energy efficient as the proposed project because the three custom homes would not
necessarily be constructed by the applicant. The off -site emissions associated with natural gas and electrical
consumption could be greater than the proposed project emissions when compared on a unit -to -unit basis.
Nonetheless, long -term air emissions would be less than the project - related emissions, which are less than
significant.
10.3.2.4 Noise
Noise resulting in the demolition of the existing structures would be similar to that described in Section 4.4.
Because grading would not extend below 50 feet NAVD88, potential noise associated with grading required
for each of the homes would be limited to the area identified in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Other noise levels resulting
from concrete pouring, metal stud framing and concrete form work would be similar to the proposed project;
however, because construction of these homes would likely occur consecutively rather than concurrently, the
overall construction phase would be substantially longer when compared to the proposed project. Based on
a two -year construction schedule for each home, construction noise would fluctuate based on the particular
phase and would extend over a six year period compared to a 32 -month construction phase for the proposed
project. Therefore, potential construction noise impacts would also be significant and unavoidable.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -9
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
10.2.2.5 Aesthetics
Section 10.0 — Alternatives
Although it is anticipated that this alternative would comply with the relevant policies related to aesthetics and
visual resources articulated in the General Pan and CLUP, development of the site with three single- family
dwelling units (and a three -slip dock) could adversely affect public views from the Public View Point on Ocean
Boulevard. Although subdivision of the property, which would result in the creation of three individual lots and
the placement of a home on each lot, could provide a degree of enhancement as desired in the relevant
General Plan policies, it is possible that the view enhancement may not be as significant as that resulting
from project implementation (i.e., 75 percent increase) in the view angle from the Public View Point. As a
result, enhancement of the public view from Ocean Boulevard that would occur from the implementation of
the proposed project may not be realized. Similarly, the view corridor along the northern property boundary
created by the proposed project would likely be eliminated in this alternative. This alternative will improve the
aesthetic character of the site (when compared to the existing older, deteriorating residences that currently
exist) and achieve architectural diversity as articulated in the relevant General Plan policies. When viewed
from the harbor, three structures would be seen, including basement levels that "daylight" at the PLOED,
which has been established at 50.7 feet NAVD88. Although the dock would be smaller (i.e., 3 slips versus 8
slips and a guest side tie), the effect on the aesthetic character of the bluff and rock outcroppings would be
similar to the proposed project. While portions of the small cove and rock outcroppings may be obscured
from view by the boats and docks associated with this alternative, the effect on those views would be
temporary; none of the visual amenities would be permanently altered or destroyed as a result of
implementing this alternative.
10.3.2.6 Drainage and Hydrology
Although the impervious area of the site may be reduced with such an alternative, the existing catch basin in
Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard is deficient and cannot adequately accommodate existing surface
flows within the drainage area. Despite this alternative likely reducing flows to the existing catch basin, the
catch basin would remain deficient. If storm runoff does not exceed existing volumes, this alternative could
not be conditioned to upgrade the catch basin from existing conditions. In addition, the potential for water
quality impacts would be similar to the proposed project and could exacerbate the existing "impaired" status
of Newport Bay if surface flows are not properly treated prior to being discharged.
10.3.2.7 Biological Resources
The potential effects of this alternative on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified in
Section 4.6. Specifically, this alternative, like the proposed project, would result in the removal of
introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff,
which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site. In addition, it is possible
that one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site, could be affected. As a result, the
same provisions for construction scheduling and pre- construction surveys for sensitive plant species and
nesting birds would also be imposed on this project alternative. In addition to these potential effects, the
reconstruction of a 3 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed in connection with the project,
would result in similar impacts within the intertidal area, and would necessitate the implementation of similar
mitigation measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the
marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to
better avoid eelgrass with this alternative given that it is a smaller dock (e.g., a larger buffer could be
implemented), due to the proximity of the facility to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post -
construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -10
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives
10.3.2.8 Public Health and Safety
Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the demolition of the existing residential structures that
occupy the site. As a result, the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would also occur (i.e.,
potential to release ACM and LBP if not properly abated). However, as prescribed for the proposed project,
this alternative would include the same standard conditions to ensure that any ACM and LBP that may exist
in the structures are abated in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of this
alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize issues associated with ACM and /or LBP.
10.3.2.9 Soils and Geology
The soils and geologic conditions on the property are suitable to accommodate the development of the site
with three single - family homes. Although similar structural reinforcement would be required, grading would
not extend below the 50 -foot elevation. Potential impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to
the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with three
slips (i.e., exposure to storm waves). Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or
minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology.
10.3.2.10 Cultural Resources
Although the grading anticipated to accommodate the three single - family residential dwelling units would be
less than that proposed in connection with the project, impacts to paleontological resources would be the
same as identified for the proposed project due to the nature of the underlying Monterey Formation, which is
known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. Therefore, this alternative
would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e.,
preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be
encountered are adequately addressed. As indicated for the proposed project, no existing archaeological
or historical resources are known to exist on the site; therefore, implementation of this alternative would
not result in any impacts to such resources.
Summary of Reduced Intensity Alternative (3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units)
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of this alternative would achieve only portions of Objectives 1 (i.e., enhance the
aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating structure), 2 (i.e., incorporate a
design that reflects the architectural diversity of the neighborhood), 3 (i.e., provide a dock for
each residence), and 7 (enhance scenic views from the harbor). However, this alternative would
not result in the construction of a multiple - family residential condominium project of sufficient size
(Objective 1) to provide range of recreational and health amenities or ample storage space
(Objective 4), enhance aesthetics of the neighborhood to the degree of the proposed project, and
remove two existing overhead power poles (Objective 2), incorporate energy- saving, sustainable,
and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, and other features designed
to conserve energy and /or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by
current applicable regulations (Objective 3), enhance public access by increasing public street
parking (Objective 5), or remove two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the
associated overhead wires, all of which presently affect the view from certain perspectives or
replace the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, all in order to
enhance scenic views to the harbor and ocean from designated vantage points (Objective 6). In
addition, if the homes in this alternative were built to the maximum building height, this alternative
would not minimize encroachment into private views when compared to the proposed project
(Objective 8).
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -11
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts
Section 10.0 — Alternatives
This alternative would decrease the amount of grading required to construct the three single -
family residential dwelling units, construction of the three homes would extend over a six year
period (i.e., two years for each home) because they which would be constructed consecutively
rather than concurrently due to market conditions. Therefore, implementation of this alternative
would not avoid or substantially reduce the potential construction noise impact associated with
project implementation. Depending on market conditions, the construction noise impacts could
extend for a greater period of time than would be the case for the proposed project or the multi-
family project alternatives. Implementation of this alternative would also result in reduced
construction and mobile- source air emissions and construction traffic, which were determined to
be less than significant with the proposed project as well.
Comparative Merits
As indicated above, this alternative does not eliminate the significant unavoidable adverse
construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Due to the manner in which
construction would occur (i.e., consecutively), the actual construction duration and, therefore,
short-term impacts associated with construction (e.g., air quality, noise, and traffic), would be
extended beyond any of the alternatives evaluated. In addition, several benefits resulting from
the proposed project might not be realized to the extent that would occur with the proposed
project, including the provision of enhanced view corridors along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation
Avenue, the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and
undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring.
10.3.3 Reduced Intensity/5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project
This alternative includes the elimination of the proposed project's Sub - Basement Level and the entire
Basement Level. The location and basic design of levels above the Basement level are assumed to be
similar as the proposed project. Twenty -five (25) caissons below the building perimeter along Bayside
Place and Newport Bay are eliminated due to the change in basement and foundation design. Due to the
elimination of parking located on the Sub - Basement and Basement levels, required parking spaces have
been reallocated among the proposed parking areas within the First and Second levels. The resulting
parking plan would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements for the development of 5 units. If
vehicle spaces on vehicle lifts were considered adequate to satisfy required parking, the number of units
could be higher assuming no reduction in building area devoted to residential uses would occur to
increase the size and capacity of the garage areas. The interior layout of the proposed residential building
areas would be reallocated and /or redesigned for a reduced number of units (5). The applicant would
have the ability to increase the size of units, provide area for common amenities or mechanical spaces for
energy independent systems. Compared to the proposed project, this multiple - family alternative has three
(3) fewer units and the extra guest parking including golf cart and motorcycle parking spaces would be
eliminated.
Elimination of 2 levels (Sub- basement and Basement Levels)
Decrease in number of units from S to 5
Elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside
Place
Total reduction of 12,240 cubic yards of excavation
Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 126 cement trucks
Reduction of approximately 9 months of construction time compared to the proposed
project
Reduction or possible elimination of mechanical spaces impacting the ability to provide
energy independent systems such as photovoltaic and gray water storages
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -12
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — A/tematives
• Reduction or possible elimination of common amenities for all units including fitness
center, less private storage
• Proposed dock design would be reduced; 5 slips for 5 units plus 1 guest side -tie
For this alternative, state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or
undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project, would
not be required. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits.
10.3.3.1 Land Use and Planning
Implementation of this alternative would require the same amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed
by the applicant for the proposed project. The construction of five (5) multiple - family residential dwelling units
on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs,
which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. This less intense
alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City s General Plan and
CLUP, similar to the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with 5 multiple - family
dwelling units in a similar configuration as the proposed project would not extend below the PLOED
established by the City Council.
10.3.3.2 Traffic Circulation
Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e., addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential
streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the
reduction in grading and requirement to export earth materials from the site would be reduced by 1,021 truck
trips. Nonetheless, the nature and extent of the construction vehicles /traffic would be the same but would
occur for a shorter period of time. These potential effects would be addressed through the implementation of
a Construction Management Plan with the same restrictions on parking, ingress /egress of vehicles, etc. As
for long -term impacts, the 5 -unit alternative would yield approximately 30 trips per day, compared to 47 for
the proposed project. Similarly, peak hour vehicle trips would also be reduced. As with the proposed project,
no potential long -term traffic impacts from this alternative would occur.
10.3.3.3 Air Quality
As with traffic impacts, the potential less than significant air emissions associated with the proposed project
during both construction and operation would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in the amount of
soil material excavated from the site and transported to the Olinda Alpha Landfill and the reduction in the
number of dwelling units. As indicated in Section 4.3, potential less than significant short-term (construction)
and long -term (operational) air emissions estimated for the proposed project would be further reduced by the
implementation of this alternative.
10.3.3.4 Noise
This alternative, which eliminates the sub - basement level, basement levels, and three dwelling units, would
also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of
25 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity. In addition, the quantity of earth material
excavated and hauled from the site would also be reduced. As a result, this alternative would require
approximately 23 months of construction, compared to 32 months for the proposed project. Potential noise
impacts for demolition would be the same. Although the noise associated with caisson drilling would be the
same as with the proposed project, fewer caissons are required and the duration of that noise over the
construction phase of the project would be reduced. In addition, noise associated with excavation to the 28-
foot elevation would be eliminated with the elimination of the sub - basement level. As indicated above,
construction noise levels anticipated as a result of this 5 -unit alternative would be virtually the same as those
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
1043
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives
identified for the proposed project; however, with the elimination of excavation below 50 feet in elevation and
25 caissons, the duration of the excessive construction noise would be significantly reduced by approximately
9 months. Although this alternative would reduce the duration of construction and, therefore, potential
excessive noise, the potential construction- related noise impacts would remain significant even with the
incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.4.
10.3.3.5 Aesthetics
Because the proposed exterior building design above the basement floor is aesthetically similar to the
proposed project, no potential aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. The
effect of this project design alternative on aesthetics would be virtually the same as identified and described
in Section 4.5 for the proposed project. The view corridor on Ocean Boulevard at the Public View Point
identified in the Citys General Plan would be expanded. In addition, the view window along the northern
property line would also be "opened" as a result of the project design. However, with the exception of the
existing overhead wires that would be extended to serve the site, the overhead utility poles in the
neighborhood on Carnation Avenue would not be undergrounded.
10.3.3.6 Drainage and Hydrology
Similar to the proposed project, the only physical changes to the site plan are those occurring below the
finished pad elevation (i.e., elimination of two basement levels). Therefore, like the proposed project, this
alternative would be expected to decrease flows to the existing deficient catch basin near the corner of
Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, although the catch basin would remain deficient. Nonetheless, this
alternative would not be required to upgrade the existing deficient catch basin. As a result, this alternative
would not improve the drainage condition in the area.
10.3.3.7 Biological Resources
The potential effects of this alternative on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified for
the proposed project, including the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers
currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species
that may reside on the site and the possible adverse effect to one or more sensitive plant species, if found
to occupy the site. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre- construction
sensitive plant species would also be imposed on this project alternative. Similarly, the reconstruction of a
5 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed, would also result in similar effects within the harbor
and intertidal areas as the proposed project and other alternatives and would, therefore, necessitate the
implementation of similar measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and
impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be
possible to avoid eelgrass with the smaller dock, due to the proximity of the facility to the existing eelgrass
bed in the harbor, pre- and post - construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or
potential impacts to, eelgrass.
10.3.3.8 Public Health and Safety
Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the demolition of the existing residential structures that
occupy the site. As a result, the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would also occur (i.e.,
potential to release ACM and LBP if not properly abated). However, as prescribed for the proposed project,
this alternative would include the same standard conditions to ensure that any ACM and LBP that may exist
in the structures are abated in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of this
alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize issues associated with ACM and /or LBP.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -14
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 - Altematives
10.3.3.9 Soils and Geology
The soils and geologic conditions are suitable to accommodate the development of the 5 -unit multiple - family
residential project. Although similar structural reinforcement would be required as with the proposed project,
grading would not extend below the 50 -foot elevation. Potential impacts associated with this alternative
would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of
the dock with five slips (i.e., exposure to stone waves). Implementation of this altemative does not
significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology.
10.3.3.10 Cultural Resources
Although grading would be reduced by eliminating the two basement levels and the need to excavate as
much as 20 feet lower, the potential effects of this project would be the same as those identified in
Section 4.10. Although no potentially significant effects would occur to historic and cultural and
archaeological resources based on the site and records surveys conducted for the site, grading
necessary to accommodate the structural components identified in this alternative would result in similar
potential effects on paleontological resources because grading would extend into the Monterey formation,
which is capable of producing such resources. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement
the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological
Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately
addressed.
Summary of Reduced Intensity /5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
It is not clear whether this alternative could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives. In
most cases, the degree to which the objectives would be achieved would be less than that
occurring with the proposed project. This alternative might not be expected to contain a sufficient
number and size of units to justify the same level of advanced design and architecture which
would reflect the architectural diversity of the community and add distinction to the harbor and
neighborhood, use energy - conserving technology in excess of that which is legally required, or
include significant common amenities (Objective 1, Objective 3, Objective 4). While this
alternative would improve the aesthetic character of the site and neighborhood by replacing the
existing structure with a more modern structure, it would not remove overhead power poles
(Objective 2). Additionally, the significantly reduced scale of the project may also reduce the
extent of landscape and streetscape enhancements (Objective 2) compared to the proposed
project. Further, the provision of energy efficient systems (Objective No. 3) likely would be limited
or precluded by the elimination of electrical and storage areas allocated for the proposed project.
Similarly, the ability to provide storage and community amenities would be severely constrained
(Objective No. 4). Objective Nos. 5, 7, and S likely could be achieved in a similar fashion as the
proposed project.
Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts
Implementation of this alternative would result in generally similar (e.g., soils and geology,
drainage and hydrology, cultural resources, aesthetics, public health and safety, etc.) or slightly
reduced (e.g., traffic and circulation, air quality, etc.) effects as those identified for the proposed
project. Although this alternative would reduce the overall duration of construction by
approximately 9 months, the reduction in the duration of excessive noise would be significantly
reduces. Therefore, of construction - related noise anticipated for this alternative would remain
significant.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -15
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives
Comparative Merits
As indicated above, the 5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project would reduce the duration of
construction noise by 9 months and significantly reduce construction - related noise, but the
construction - related noise would remain significant. Although some (less than significant) project -
related effects would be reduced further with this alternative, the reductions would occur at the
expense of the reduction and /or elimination of project components, including storage space,
common amenities, upgrading of the existing catch basin, removal of utility poles, and
undergrounding of wiring, and mechanical spaces, which affect the ability to provide energy
independent systems.
10.3.4 Existing Zoning /Alternative Design
Two 8 -unit alternatives that include 8 multiple - family residential dwelling units on the site reflect an
alternative design have been identified for the "existing zoning" alternative. While they reflect the same
number of dwelling units and less grading, each is characterized by specific parameters, including a
reduction in grading, which are described below.
8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading
F-111M 1. i1 -X-11
This 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project alternative (refer to Exhibits 10 -2 through 10 -6) includes
the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,259 square
feet at the basement level, resulting in a reduction of 7,804 cubic yards of excavation when compared to
the proposed project. Building perimeter walls along Bayside Place and Newport Bay have been
modified to accommodate the distance required for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slope in order to
eliminate the need for 25 caissons along that side. As a result, the perimeter walls are pulled back from
the PLOED of 50.7 feet NAVD88. In addition, common facilities and amenities have also been reduced in
an effort to minimize grading and potential impacts. The resulting parking plan complies with the City's
off - street parking requirements; however, due to the elimination of the sub - basement parking, parking
spaces have been reallocated in this alternative to the first, second and basement levels of the structure.
This alternative has 3 fewer guest parking spaces and does not include the golf cart and motorcycle
parking. The proposed dock design in this alternative, which includes eight slips for the eight dwelling
units as well as one guest "side tie,' would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative A, the
applicant has indicated that it would provide state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing
catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring to the same extent as provided for
the proposed project. These improvements would be voluntarily provided even though there is no basis
to require the implementation of these improvements.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -16
9JbIL0 y1V0 M!'d W101d h�iLM-G 1"I'/'WMVIq Y.Y. tfPMY 499CY VJ'BN'QAIi IMOdGN QG dy
0' +••9u' 'aw�z aimvumox+ 32tfLL'A11H7L"a' 3ll3NNV3I' NOI>J9
1IpIr/I
11 6� 1 AN i
�z
N C
O N
ra
y_ y
C
L cl)
X
W w
R
m
LL
LL
2
00
Cl)
a)
N
C
L
d
y
Q
R
'L^
V
d
V
7
W
N
@
U
_W
G
yU
4
@
L'
@
C
C
@
C
O
c
Q]
W
I
9
Q
U
C -
o c
N R
Wm
U L..
@ O
E 3 0 .^-
r
O
W�
N
A
d
Q
Cl)
O -
r
Y
x
x
W �
U
N
t
U
Q
O
N
C
C
N
d
C
O
C
co
U1
U
K
0
O
y
Q
U
Y _
of
m m
�m
�Y
ip2N �
P�� a
So
W N
W
o�
d
� C
O �
�a
0
L O
X LL
W
C
L)
ci
cn
cn
0
LL
au
m
M
C
t6
Q
Cl)
N
w
f6
C
L
Y
Q
-a
d
U
7
a
m
d
5
U
_N
L
U
Q
d
d
C
C
t0
d
C
O
cc
co
IlJ
U
K
7
Q
y
U
C
O L
O
O
N �
O
N Z N d
,Ra
g
W N
�a
o�
m
a
LO c
oa
0
t O
X Il
w a
LLL_
LL
00
Cl)
a
M
L
Q
»
c
v
d
U
3
a
d
d
U
v
a
d
0
.0
m
U
K
0
O
rn
U
�W
m
vY
O
E 3 0 �°,
Z N �
��g a
WN
om
Q
a
Alm
MA
LO c
oa
0
t O
X Il
w a
LLL_
LL
00
Cl)
a
M
L
Q
»
c
v
d
U
3
a
d
d
U
v
a
d
0
.0
m
U
K
0
O
rn
U
�W
m
vY
O
E 3 0 �°,
Z N �
��g a
WN
om
Q
(D C
oa R
Y_ L
O
t O
X LL
W c
e
d
c
m
0
m
U
K
O
rn
U
m
m
U t..
� O
E3o
�ZN
C I L
WN
C
m
0¢
d
a
_ _.. _ . _. .. ..... . . ... .... .
®
�I
�\ ♦ =111
iii���
•
II II
(D C
oa R
Y_ L
O
t O
X LL
W c
e
d
c
m
0
m
U
K
O
rn
U
m
m
U t..
� O
E3o
�ZN
C I L
WN
C
m
0¢
d
a
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental
Alternative B
Section 10.0 — Alternatives
This alternative is similar to the 8 -unit alternative described in the previous section (i.e., no sub - basement
level). However, implementation of this alternative would also result in a reduction of 5,419 square feet at
the basement level from the proposed project. Only the garage "core" and a small portion of circulation,
mechanical, and storage space would remain at the basement level (refer to Exhibit 10 -7 and Exhibits 10-
3 through 10 -6). In addition, common facilities such as the recreation room and most of the storage areas
have been eliminated. A reduction in the mechanical spaces would also result in the elimination of some
energy- independent systems such as the photovoltaic and gray water storage features; however, the
applicant would retain the ability to modify the plans to incorporate these facilities within other areas. A
small portion of excavation beyond the basement perimeter is necessary for the pool on the first floor.
This alternative would result in the elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport
Bay and Bayside Place and would require 9,229 cubic yards less of excavation to accommodate the
proposed structure. The first and second floor plans are the same as the other 8 -unit alternative
previously identified and the required parking would also be reallocated to the first, second, and
basement levels of the structure. Although the extra guest parking spaces would be eliminated in this
alternative, the design would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements. Also, the proposed
dock design would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative B, there is no requirement for
incorporating the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or
undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. The
applicant has indicated it would not be able to provide these improvements for Alternative B.
10.3.4.1 Land Use and Planning
Implementation of this alternative would require the same amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed
by the applicant for the proposed project. The development intensity of this altemative is the same as the
proposed project; the construction of eight (8) multiple - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated
property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized
by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. This alternative could be designed to be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and CLOP, in the same fashion as the
proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with 8 multiple - family dwelling units in a
similar configuration, albeit without the storage and amenities included in the proposed project, would not
extend below the PLOED established by the City Council.
10.3.4.2 Traffic Circulation
Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar to the proposed project, although the number of heavy
truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading and requirement to export earth materials from the site
would be reduced as a result of the reduction of grading associated with these alternatives (i.e., 1,881 and
2,055 heavy truck and cement truck trips versus 2,727 total trips for the proposed project). Nonetheless, the
nature and extent of the construction vehicles /traffic would be the same but would occur for a shorter period
of time. These potential effects would be addressed through the implementation of a Construction
Management Plan with the same restrictions on parking, ingress /egress of vehicles, etc. as the Construction
Management Plan proposed in connection with the project. As for long -term impacts, the 8 -unit alternatives
(with reduced grading as indicated above) would yield the same number of trips (i.e., 47 trips per day) as the
proposed project. Off - street parking would comply with the City's parking code requirements and the number
of on- street parking spaces would also be increased as reflected in the proposed project. Similarly, peak
hour vehicle trips would also be the same with the implementation of either of these reduced grading
alternatives; however, like the proposed project, no potential long -term traffic impacts from this alternative
would occur.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -22
n
0
Y_
x
W
m
r
U
Q
N
z
m
c
c
c
0
m
IL
U
K
7
0
co
U
C _
oz
� m
m �
0
�3o N
r Z N
G ^� R
eh
>o
WN
O
m
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives
10.3.4.3 Air Quality
As with traffic impacts, the potential less than significant air emissions associated with the proposed project
during both construction and operation would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in the amount of
soil material excavated from the site and transported to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. As indicated in Section 4.3,
potential less than significant short-term (construction) and long -term (operational) air emissions estimated for
the proposed project would be further reduced by the implementation of either of these reduced grading
alternatives that would also yield 8 multiple - family residential dwelling units.
10.3.4.4 Noise
These reduced grading alternatives (i.e., Alternative A would eliminate the sub - basement level and 1,259
square feet in the basement level and Alternative B would eliminate the sub - basement level and 5,419
square feet in the basement level) would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated
with construction, including the elimination of 23 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity.
In addition, the quantity of earth material excavated and hauled from the site would also be reduced. As a
result, these alternatives would require only 27 months to construction Alternative A and 26 months for
Alternative B of construction, compared to 32 months for the proposed project. Potential noise impacts for
demolition would be the same. Although the noise associated with caisson drilling would be the same for the
proposed project, fewer caissons are required and the duration of that noise over the construction phase of
the project would be reduced. In addition, noise associated with excavation to the 28 -foot elevation would be
eliminated with the elimination of the sub - basement level. As indicated above, construction noise levels
anticipated as a result of these 8 -unit alternatives would be virtually the same as those identified for the
proposed project; however, with the elimination of excavation below 40 feet in elevation and 23 caissons, the
duration of construction would be reduced by five months for Alternative A and six months for Alternative B,
although the duration of the reduction in excessive construction noise would be less. While these alternatives
would reduce the duration of construction and, therefore, potential excessive noise, the reduction in noise
would constitute a significant reduction in potential construction noise impacts; however it would remain
significant even with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.4.
10.3.4.5 Aesthetics
Because the proposed exterior building design above the basement floor is identical to the proposed project,
no potential aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. The effect of these 8-
unit, reduced grading project design alternatives on aesthetics would be the same as identified and described
in Section 4.5 for the proposed project. The view corridor on Ocean Boulevard at the Public View Point
identified in the City s General Plan would be expanded and enhanced to provide a wider view. In addition,
the view corridor along the northern property line would also be "opened" as a result of the project design and
the overhead utilities in the neighborhood on Carnation Avenue would also be undergrounded, resulting in
the improvement of the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Finally, the aesthetic character of the bluff
and cove below when viewed from the harbor would not be adversely impacted by the proposed dock facility,
which would be the same as the proposed project. As indicated in Section 4.5, views from the harbor would
be momentarily interrupted by the proposed dock; however, no significant aesthetic impacts would occur.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -24
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Altematives
10.3.4.6 Drainage and Hydrology
Similar to the proposed project, the only physical changes to the site plan as a result of these 8 -unit
alternatives are those occurring below the finished pad elevation (i.e., elimination of two basement levels).
Although neither reduced grading alternative would be required to upgrade the existing deficient catch basin
near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, the applicant would implement that improvement
for Alternative A, which would eliminate the existing catch basin deficiency. These reduced grading design
alternatives would also include the same or similar BMPs and features to treat stormwater before it is
discharged into the bay.
10.3.4.7 Biological Resources
The potential effects of these reduced grading alternatives on terrestrial biological resources would be the
same as identified for the proposed project, including the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs
and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to
nesting bird species that may reside on the site and the possible adverse effect to one or more sensitive
plant species, if found to occupy the site. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling
and pre - construction sensitive plant species would also be imposed on this project alternative. Similarly,
the reconstruction of a 8 -slip dock would also result in the same effects within the intertidal area as the
proposed project and other alternatives and would, therefore, necessitate the implementation of the
measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine
resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.
10.3.4.8 Public Health and Safety
Implementation of this alternative would require the demolition of the two residential structures that exist on
the subject property. The potential impacts associated with the 8 -unit multiple - family residential project with
reduced grading would be the same as described in Section 4.8. Therefore, it will be necessary to abate the
ACM and LBP in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
10.3.4.9 Soils and Geology
The soils and geologic conditions are suitable to accommodate the development of the site either of the 8-
unit multiple - family residential projects that reduce the grading. Similar structural reinforcement would be
required to accommodate either design alternative. Potential impacts associated with these reduced grading
alternatives would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the
construction of the dock with eight slips (i.e., exposure to storm waves). Implementation of this alternative
does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology.
10.3.4.10 Cultural Resources
Although the amount of grading would be reduced by eliminating all or portions of the two basement
levels and the need to excavate as much as 20 feet lower, the potential effects of this project would be
the same as those identified in Section 4.10. Although no potentially significant effects would occur to
historic and cultural /archaeological resources based on the site and records surveys conducted for the
site, grading necessary to accommodate the structural components identified in this alternative would
result in similar potential effects on paleontological resources because grading would extend into the
Monterey formation, which is capable of producing such resources. Therefore, this alternative would be
required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e.,
preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be
encountered are adequately addressed.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10-25
Aerie PA 2006196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives
Summary of Existing Zoning /Alternative Design
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of Alternative A will, to some extent, achieve all project objectives. Given the
reduced building area with the basement level eliminated and sub - basement level reduced in
size, there would be less area to accommodate the mechanical /electrical spaces for the energy -
efficient features that go beyond the minimum Title 24 code compliance. The common amenities
proposed would be significantly reduced, with the exception of the pool itself, and the private
storage areas would be also be reduced in size. The proposed docks would remain the same as
that included in the proposed project.
Implementation of Alternative B also achieves, to some degree, most of the project objectives.
The ability to incorporate the use of energy- conserving technology would be constrained, as
would the inclusion of common amenities (Objective 1). Achievement of Objectives No. 2 and No.
4 is compromised to a degree because, as with Objective 1, the reduced scale of the project will
eliminate the requirement to remove the existing power poles. Alternative B has reduced areas
available for mechanical /electrical spaces, common amenities and storage areas relative to
Alternative A. As with Alternative A, the proposed docks would remain the same as that included
in the proposed project.
Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts
With the exception of reducing the duration of construction by five or six months, which would
reduce the number of heavy truck trips entering the roadway system and the daily air emissions
(both of which were determined to be less than significant), the reduced grading alternatives
described above would result in generally similar impacts as those described for the proposed
project. Potential construction - related noise impacts would be significantly be reduced but the
remaining impact will remain significant.
Comparative Merits
As indicated above, both of the reduced grading alternatives could achieve a significant reduction
in construction- related noise due to the reduced construction duration and some reduction in the
degree of other environmental effects (truck traffic and air quality); however, these reductions
would not be substantial and would not completely avoid the potentially significant construction -
related noise impacts. Furthermore, the reductions in less than significant impacts would cause
the elimination of components of the proposed project that are intended to achieve specific
project objectives (e.g., provision of energy efficient systems, on -site recreational amenities, etc.).
Specifically with respect to Alternative B, the project would not include the high -level of energy -
saving technology, remove the existing power poles and overhead wiring, or upgrade the existing
catch basin, as would both the proposed project and Alternative A.
10.4 Summary of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the "environmentally superior' alternative among those evaluated from the
reasonable range of alternatives analyzed. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates
that in the event "... the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also
identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives"
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2006196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
F10111.1
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Altematives
As indicated in Table 10 -1, the No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the two potentially
significant project - related impacts (construction noise and paleontology) identified in Chapter 4.0. The
remaining alternatives would reduce to some extent, the degree of traffic and air quality impacts, which
were determined to be less than significant for the proposed project. In addition, although the duration of
construction noise would be significantly reduced as a result of reduced grading in the 3, 5, and 8 -unit
alternatives, the construction noise associated with each alternative could not be mitigated and would
remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Alternative 3A, the other
alternatives would not result in the benefits derived form project implementation (e.g., underground
overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the
existing deficient catch basin). Finally, all or portions of several project objectives would not be realized,
including state -of- the -art energy saving conservation features and the provision of recreation amenities.
Based on the potential environmental effects and the ability to meet the project objectives, existing
Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple Family Alternative A is considered the "environmentally superior' alternative of the
alternatives considered as a result of improvements that ameliorate existing undesirable environmental
conditions (e.g., provision of adequate capacity in the existing deficient storm drain, removal of the
unsightly overhead utility poles, etc.). Although Alternative B further reduces grading and, to some
degree, the duration of construction noise, the potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable
as with all of the alternatives and project objectives would not be achieved to the same degree as
compared to Alternative A. Furthermore, none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy
conservation systems would be included in the single - family (i.e., 3 dwelling units), or 5 -unt and 8 -unit
Alternative B design alternatives; thus, the environmental benefits would not accrue to those alternatives.
Table 10 -1
Summary of Project Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -27
Significant
Reduced
Impacts Avoided
Alternative
Project
or Substantially
Environmentally
Meets
Effects
Reduced
Other Effects
Superior?
Project Objectives'
No Project/No
Traffic
Noise
4.5
Yes
None
Development
Air Qualfiy2
5
Paleontology
Reduced Intensity
3 Single Family Units
Trafficz.e
Air Quality5
None
Noise r
Drainage /Hydrology
No
1 2, 3, and 7
,
Aesthefics
(Partial)
Reduced Intensity
5 Multiple Family Units
Traffic
Air Quality 5
None
>
Drainage/Hydrology'
5
No°
5,7, and 8
Reduced Grading
Noises
Aesthetics s8
(Partial)
Existing Zoning
Troffio ze
8 Multiple Family Units
Air Qualityz ,e
None
Drainage/Hydrology'
8
Yes
All
Reduced Grading
g
Noises
Aesthetics
(Partial)
Alternative A
Existing Zoning
roffio ze
TDrainage
8 Multiple Family Units
Air Qualilyz ,e
None
/Hydrology'
a
No
All
Reduced Grading
g
Noises
Aesthetics
(Partial)
Alternative B
'Numbers refer to Project Objectives Identified in Section 10.5.
2During the construction phase.
'Substantially reduces or eliminates a significant unavoidable adverse impact.
°Does not achieve City goals and objectives and /or inconsistent with adopted land use policies.
5Does not result in improved surface water quality and continuation of catch basin deficiency in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard.
SProject effects less than significant; reduced project effects is the result of reduced grading required for the alternatives.
'Does not upgrade existing deficient catch basin.
°Does not underground existing power poles and wiring.
9Duration of construction phase reduced; however, alternative will not significantly reduce construction noise levels.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
10 -27
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted
CHAPTER 11.0
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Department
David Lepo, Director
James Campbell, Principal Planner
Public Works Department
Tony Brine, Transportation and Development Services Manager
Dave Keely, Associate Traffic Engineer
Building Department
Faisal Jurdi, Deputy Building Officer
Steve Hook, Chief Building Inspector
Fire Department
Steve Buntin, Fire Marshal
Kim Reitman, Fire Prevention Specialist
Harbor Resources
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager
KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING
Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal
AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES
Joe Foust, Principal
Terry Austin, Principal
ICF /JONES & STOKES
Kim Svitenko, Senior Biologist
SYNECTECOLOGY
Todd Brody, Principal
DraftEnvimnmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 11 -1
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted
GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Lisa L. Bates - Seabold, CEG, Senior Engineering Geoloigst
COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC.
Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist
SOFTMIRAGE, INC.
Steve Pollack, Principal
Howard Ouellette
BRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE
Brion Jeannette, Principal
Wun Sze Li
Amy Creager
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES INRVINE, INC.
Ted Frattone
Philip D. Dowty, P.E.
THE PLANNING CENTER
Tin Cheung
GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES
Glenn Lukos
NOBLE CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jon T. Moore, P.E.
NEBLETT & ASSOCIATES
Sidney S. Neblett, R.G., C.E.G.
Daniel J. Morikwa, P.E., G.E.
David H. Ginter, G.G.
DraftEnvironmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 11 -2
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 12.0— References
CHAPTER 12.0
REFERENCES
The following documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658.
1. Newport Beach General Plan, including all elements; City of Newport Beach (Adopted July 25,
2006).
2. Local Coastal Program — Coastal Land Use Plan; City of Newport Beach (Adopted December 13,
2005).
3. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan; City of Newport Beach.
4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
5. Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The following documents have been prepared to evaluate the proposed project and are the basis of the
analysis presented in specific sections of the Draft EIR.
1. AEI Consultants; Pre - Demolition Asbestos /Lead -Based Paint Survey, 201 — 207 Carnation
Avenue; December 13, 2007.
2. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; Aerie Corona del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Assessment;
March 4, 2009.
3. Coastal Resource Management, Inc.; Eelgrass (Zosfera Marina) Impact Assessment for a Dock
Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove; May 12, 2008 (Revised March 4, 2009).
4. GeoSoils, Inc; Coastal Hazard Study; October 5, 2006.
5. GeoSoils, Inc.; Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance in the Vicinity of 201 — 207 Carnation
Avenue, Corona del Mar; June 11, 2007.
6. GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; Summary Letter of Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed
Condominium Project; October 29, 2008.
7. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 16882; February 2,
2009.
8. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc; Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan; December 30,
2007, Revised January 28, 2009.
9. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; March 17, 2007;
(Revised January 20, 2009).
10. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Elevation Certification; April 12, 2007.
11. ICF /Jones & Stokes; Biological Impact Report for Aerie Residential Project; December 2008.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 12 -1
Aerie PA2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 12.0 — References
12. Brion Jeannette Architecture; Preliminary Construction Management Plan; October 30, 2008
(Revised December 23, 2008).
13. Brion Jeannette Architecture; Aerie Project Overview; May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007).
14. Leighton & Associates, Inc.; Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for
the Proposed Aerie Dock Replacement; August 25, 2008 (Revised September 19, 2008).
15. LSA Associates, Inc.; Results of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Searches for
the Carnation Villas Project; July 12, 2005.
16. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Revised Plan Review and Response to Comments Aerie — 8 Unit
Condominium Project; December 19, 2008.
17. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Condominium Project, TTM
16882; September 30, 2008.
18. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report; August 5, 2005.
19. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Preliminary Geologic / Geotechnical Investigation Report —
Condominium Project 201 — 205 and 207 Carnation Avenue; March 28, 2003.
20. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; 2007 CBC Seismic Design parameters (Update Letter Report); May
12, 2008.
21. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Review of Architectural Plan; November 27 and December 17, 2007.
22. Noble Consultants; Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project (Letter Report);
May 9, 2008.
23. P &D Consultants; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; May 26, 2006.
24. P &D Consultants; Biological Constraints Analysis for Aerie Residential Project; June 10, 2005.
25. The Planning Center; Construction Noise and Vibration Study for: Aerie Residential
Development; March 2009
26. Robert Mitchell & Associates; Existing Vegetation Map (Sheets L -1 and L -2); April 25, 2008.
27. Synectecology; Aerie Residential Development Air Quality Focused Analysis; December 22,
2008.
28. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed
Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach; March 12, 2009.
29. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; Evaluation of Subsurface Profile for AcousticNibration Study, Proposed
Dock Replacement at Carnation Cove; May 6, 2008.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 12 -2
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 13.0— Glossary of Acronyms
CHAPTER 13.0
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard /Standards
ADT
Average Daily Traffic
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
AQMD
Air Quality Management District
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BMP Best Management Practices
CAA
Federal Clean Air Act
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CCAA
California Clean Air Act
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CESA
California Endangered Species Act
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
CO2E
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CWA
Federal Clean Water Act
DAMP
Drainage Area Management Plan
dB
Decibel
dBA
A- weighted decibel
EA Environmental Assessment
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
F Fahrenheit
ft Feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization
IS
Initial Study
Leq
Equivalent noise level
Lmax
Maximum noise level
Lmin
Minimum noise level
LOS
Level of service
MCLs
Maximum content levels
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND
Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPAH
Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MSL
Mean Sea Level
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 13 -1
Aerie PA 2005 -196
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 13.0— Glossary of Acronyms
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988
NO2
Nitrogen dioxide
NOP
Notice of Preparation
NOx
Nitrogen oxides
NPDES
Nation Pollution Discharge and Elimination System
03
Ozone
PA
Planning Application
PRC
Public Resources Code
PM2.5
Particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter
PM10
Particulates ten microns or less in diameter
ppm
parts per million
PPV
Peak Particle Velocity
RAP
Remedial Action Plan
ROC
Reactive Organic Compounds
ROG
Reactive Organic Gases
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAMP
Special Area Management Plan
SCAG
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
sf
Square feet
S02
Sulfur Dioxide
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Program
Sox
Sulfur oxides
TDM
Transportation Demand Management
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
TPD
Trips per Day
USGS United State Geological Survey
V/C
Volume /Capacity
VdB
Velocity decibels
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
VPD
Vehicles per Day
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA
March 2009
Page 13 -2
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation/
NOP Comments
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
For Hand Delivery /Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 958 t4
Project Title: Aerie (PA2005 -196)
445 -0613 SCH # 2006051082
Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach
❑ Water Facilities: Type MOD
Contact Person: James Campbell, Senior Planner
Mailing Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard
Phone: (949) 644 -3210
❑ Mining: Mineral
City: Newport Beach
Zip: 926585 County: Orange
❑ Educational
❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD
❑ Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Project Location: County: Orange
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City/Nearest Community: Newport Beach
— — — — — — — — —
Cross Streets: Ocean BoulevardlCamation Avenue
Zip Code: 92658
Lat./Lung.: 33037'00"N/ 117053'51"W
Total Acres: 1.4
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Section:
Twp.: Range:
Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR -1
Waterways: Pacific Ocean
Airports:
Railways:
Schools:
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Document Type:
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
CEQA: ® NOP
❑ Draft EIR
NEPA: ❑ NOI Other:
❑ Joint Document
❑ Early Cons
❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR
❑ EA
❑ Final Document
❑ Neg Dec
(Prior SCH No.) 2006051082
❑ Draft EIS
❑ Other
❑ Mit Neg Dec
Other
❑ FONSI
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Local Action Type:
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — —
❑ General Plan Update
❑ Specific Plan
® Rezone
❑ Annexation
® General Plan Amendment
❑ Master Plan
❑ Prezone
❑ Redevelopment
❑ General Plan Element
❑ Planned Unit Development
❑ Use Permit
® Coastal Permit
❑ Community Plan
❑ Site Plan
® Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)
® Other Mod. Permit
Development Type
® Residential: Units 8 Acres 1.4 _
❑ Water Facilities: Type MOD
❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees
❑ Transportation: Type
❑ Commercial: Sq.ft Acres Employees
❑ Mining: Mineral
❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees
❑ Power. Type MW
❑ Educational
❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD
❑ Recreational
❑ Hazardous Waste: Type
® C ter: Dock replacement/reconfiguralion
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
® Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ® Vegetation
❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plain /Flooding ❑ Schools /Universities ® Water Quality
® Air Quality ❑ Forest Land /Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply /Groundwater
❑ Archeological/Historical ® Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian
® Biological Resources ❑ Minerals to Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ® Wildlife
® Coastal Zone ® Noise ❑ Solid Waste ® Growth Inducing
® Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population /Housing Balance ® Toxic /Hazardous ® Land Use
❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facitities ® Traffic/Circulation ® Cumulative Effects
❑ Other
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Present Land UselZoning /General Plan Designation:
Existing Land Use: Residential (15 dwelling units): Existing Zoning: 'R -2' (Two Family Residential) and'MFR (2178)' (Multiple family Residential, 2,178 sq. ft.
land/unit): General Plan: 'RT (Two-Unit Residential)' and RM (Multiple Unit Residential — 20 du /ac)'
Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary)
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 62,709 square feet and includes living area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In addition, the
project applicant is also proposing the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities on the site. Eight (8)
replacement slips and a guest side -tie dock are proposed. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006),
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002), Zone Change (CA2005-009), Tract Map (NT2005-004/TT16882), Modification Permit (MD2005 -M7), and
Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002).
Note: The state Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a January 2008
protect (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please till in.
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X ".
If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S ".
_ Air Resources Board
_ Boating & Waterways, Department of
California Highway Patrol
CalFire
S Caltrans District # 12
_ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans Planning (Headquarters)
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
_ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
S Coastal Commission
_ Colorado River Board
Conservation, Department of
Corrections, Department of
_ Delta Protection Commission
Education, Department of
Energy Commission
S Fish & Game Region #
Food & Agriculture, Department of
General Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Housing & Community Development
Integrated Waste Management Board
S Native American Heritage Commission
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Office of Emergency Services
S Office of Historic Preservation
Office of Public School Construction
Parks & Recreation
Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Public Utilities Commission
S Regional WQCB #
Resources Agency
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mms Conservancy
_ San Joaquin River Conservancy
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Lands Commission
_ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
S Toxic Substances Control, Department of
Water Resources, Department of
Other
Other
Starting Date September 10, 2008 Ending Date October 9, 2008
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):
Consulting Firm: Keeton Kreiher Consulting Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Address: 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Address: 23792 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 100
City/State /Zip: Tustin, CA 92780 City/State /Zip: Lake Forest, CA N2 30
Contact: Keeton K. Kre tzar. Principal Phone: (949) 5955900
Phone: (714) 6655509
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
.r
Signature of Lead Agency Representative:. Date: September 8. 2008
i
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resour Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
-= � ;:Z: Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
'1F11N��`
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Project: Aerie (PA2005 -196)
Project Location: 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection
of Ocean Boulevard) 8 101 Bayside Place
Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach
Pursuant to Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of
Newport Beach (City) will be the lead agency and will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for
the proposed project described below. The City needs to know your agency's views as to the scope and
content of the environmental information related to your agency's statutory authority with respect to the
proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering any
applicable permits for the project.
The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project will require the preparation of an
EIR and, as authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study has not been
prepared. Potentially significant environmental effects that will be evaluated in the EIR include:
Aesthetics Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning
Noise Transportation/Traffic
Unless specific comments are received during the NOP public comment period that indicate a potential
for the project to result in significant impacts, the following issues will not be addressed in the EIR:
Agricultural Resources Mineral Resources
Recreation Public Services and Facilities
Utilities Population and Housing
Pursuant to Section 15103 of the CEQA Guidelines, your response must be sent at the earliest date but
received by our agency no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice. Should you have any
questions regarding the project or this NOP, please call Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner, at (949)
644 -3210. Please mail your written response including any comments you may have on this project to:
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Description: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is the applicant for the Aerie residential project (PA
2005 -196) (Project). The Project consists of (a) the demolition of the existing residential structures on the
1.4 -acre site (the Site); (b) the development of eight (8) residential condominium units; and (c) the
replacement, reconfiguration, and expansion of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock
facilities on the Site.
Existing Conditions
The Site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as a
deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built
prior to 1961) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building atop the bluff with an
existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad located at the base of the bluff. The existing apartment
structure has a total of three levels, including two split levels that are visible above the existing grade from
the street. All three levels of the existing building are visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing
apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue.
The single - family home on the Site 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 Site's setting.
Aerial Photograph
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 westerly extent of the existing foundation of the existing apartment building is located on the
face of the coastal bluff. An on -grade staircase built prior to 1961 presently exists on the bluff face that
connects the apartment building with an existing, inegulady shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square
feet) and private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Vegetation and exposed rock formations comprise the
bluff face below the existing buildings.
West of the 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 Site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously
filled submerged lands. South and east of the Site are a mix of 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.
Proposed Residential Structures
The Project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily
of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean
common recreation areas, storage and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub-
basement').
Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four
residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass
61,709 square feet and includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical
areas as reflected in Table 1.
Table 1
Development Area Breakdown
Aerie (PA 2005 -196)
Use
Area
(Square Feet
Living
29,426
Storage Areas
5,943
Parking
13,234
Common Area, Circulation and
Mechanical
13,106
Total
61,709
SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture
The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site
( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more
than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD 88, except for an emergency exit at
elevation 40.5 NAVD 88 that will be screened from public view. The basement and sub - basement levels
are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas,
and firepits are proposed at each above grade level. The Project will encroach into the front and side
setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic
yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the Site. The eight condominium units are further
described in Table 2.
Table 2
Unit Statistical Analysis
Unit No.
No. of
Levels
Living Area
(S q. Ft.
Garage
(S q. Ft.
Storage
(S q. Ft.
Total
(S q. Ft.
1
1
3,716
416
471
4,603
2
1
3,204
410
705
4,319
3
1
2,662
397
648
3,707
4
1
2,916
418
709
4,043
5
2
4,990
483
1,143
6616
6
2
4,130
436
889
5,455
7
1
3,745
399
674
4,818
8
1
4 063
552
704
5,319
Totals
29 426
3,511
5,943
38.880
SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture
Conceptual Site Plan
,
/ CARNATION AVE.
Idl
da
AERIE - SITE PLkR --- / ° 1
r
/r
EXISTING CONCRETE PAD L �
DECK
BAYSIDE PL
�
STEPS ON GRADE TO REMAI N �
PATIO
r �
PROPOSED DOCK DESIGN
- -
EMERGENCY EXIT/ DOCK ACCESS
--
I
UNDER DECK AT ELEV. 40.5'
r
DECK
r
� POW.
:I
J
/ CARNATION AVE.
Idl
da
AERIE - SITE PLkR --- / ° 1
Cross Section B
SECTION B NOT TO SCALE -'
As indicated in Table 2, each condominium unit will have a private storage room located in the
subterranean levels. 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. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with
an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the
sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four
(4) feet below the grade of Camation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two-car garage, and
five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street
grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile
elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the
apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built
prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building
by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level.
The Docks
The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame,
concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to
remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks can
accommodate four (4) small boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and
one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats in the 40 to 60-
foot class and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan, below.
The new docks will consist of 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 an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing
docks will be removed and 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). All guidepiles will be pre-
stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be
replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway.
As illustrated in the Dock Replacement Plan below, the pile- supported pier walkway between the existing
gangway platform and the existing concrete pad, will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind
(timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles
supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform
replacement will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber
deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and railing will be repaired and
patched as necessary.
a)
[40 T¢
X155 ll)
(N) .
UM
Dock Replacement Plan
J•
J �
\I t
[nmiq�[�[ITNl�
\
i
Z�, ..
AWN
f1]
I
1
City of Newport Beach Discretionary Approvals
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 (CA2005 -009)
Tract Map (NT2005- 004rrT16882)
Modification Permit (MD2005 -087)
Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002)
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The following discretionary approvals are required by other agencies.
Coastal Land Use Program Amendment — California Coastal Commission
Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission
Vicinity Map
Crystal Cive
J 1a3
eri
� —i skm uorar! an
m
ioD Of h
D MG6 YahpetlM. r DiIL ®AJ06 wr1e0 TeleMhi
ana
n.nn�n,�. ame P.'- stminzter
claw ryc,naa -
», -r „s.
oee
raw u
Jran9e
Beach
BeachD °xw -.,
i
Tom Area ud x,4, 'w
., em:
tam sj CHunflh toi\seaeh
The oah4a 'a ,s
�.
Santa Ana
Tusti
Ind., / d, bona
-
CNleral
OeIMM CM'.
'-
Dana Grant o
F
Can 01
Ennnu .
s E-
ouer•prt
C ramnp
_ W.,C
m 6&mau— a,dans
Sena Ana Dane
,n.
Nrzo 0.V nc. bM1lmd
MaRe.•
Warne A' s...
EPF nP
\J
er Ae w4Mnhurp �
W \Arta,
anew err -
sarans:c
Fountain Valley
m_ 'TaMrt
I,iI.Y
- EIIn AV..,
K ^�r1Rwv Jn D ��
agsati.fl PVC
O a�
..
i
' 4alfielC PVe
Qp
a 11p14]f:.'
Ia ado
O.
i.Vin
U
p
e,v Eartlyin
to
Q
? costa Mesa
_
Newport Beach E..
-
_
i e1
`
lib Y}
Project S
aDel
y
O1
Ta
,. a.
Crystal Cive
J 1a3
eri
� —i skm uorar! an
m
ioD Of h
D MG6 YahpetlM. r DiIL ®AJ06 wr1e0 TeleMhi
Location Map
Project Site
-'
a
L�
EA', nVE E
r .trlM«E
c'
�o
„rpm
A
m
otz
A
0�8GAfl
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing Zoning Designations
0
1--
ac
0
LU
Z
Proposed Zoning
CITY OF ArEll"PORT PP"ACH
APN 052-M3-21
PF
1'1-opo5('d
Lot Litic,
Area subject to land use
designation changes
MFR Existing
R-2 Proposed
do
0,
Off, �-
Legend
MFR - Multi-Family Residential
R•2 - Two-Family Residential
oTA "Il np l'al.itl!NJiI— lil'vt�t`,S12 \Cyr ': \r1�7 =,y�y H(Il :�I \L.ttjt.'�.57_____....._. ,j lj_\ jl 't IR,tHZF f:.i_/fR f�_os.Yjxq
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BY
District 12 N ANNING f1EPARTIVI-ENT
3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 390
Irvine. C'.4 92612 -8894 7 ^
Tel: 19.391735 -2,67 �E•
Fax: (9491724-259" 1 ?rs sn�r pn..rr'
He rnnyr a /frdrmi
September 18, 2008 UY OF NEWPORT Bcpr�,
Mr. James Cambell
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Aerie (PA2005 -196)
Dear Mr. Cambell,
File: IGR/CEQA
SCHP: 2007021054
Log A: 1833F.
PCH
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Aerie
(PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact Report. The project applicant is proposing to develop the
1.4 acre site lvith an 8 -unit condominium complex. The total development area will encompass 62,709
square feet and includes reconfiguration of pier and dock facilities. The nearest State route to the
project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).
The Cali fornia Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this
project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the
Deparnnent's' right -of -way, an encroachment pennit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please
do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487.
Sincerely,.,
11- -rati Chamberlain, Branch Chief
Local Developmentflntergoverinnental Review
C: Tern Roberts. Office of Planning and Research
"C a trans fmprmros rnobilln cross C'nliJarnirr'•
Attached for your review and commnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Aeric (PA2005 -196) draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency.
This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely
manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the
environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
.James Campbell
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
wium a ropy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCII number
noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at
(916) 445 -0613.
Sit errly,
✓ �I
As S Nlnrgan
Project Analyst. State ('Iearinghouse
Auachments
cc: Lead Agency
140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
(916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wvnv.opr.ca.goV
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
v
p 'L GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH '
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT rFOFCAL\
AANnt.n Bt^.i WAtI'I.FNRCCiaR
CYNTHIA BRYANT
GOVERNOR
DraxcmR
Notice of Preparation
RECEIVED By
September 10, 2008
pIANNINC DEPARTMENT
SEE• x., n
To: Reviewing Agencies
fp�y�y BEACH
CRY OF NEWPORT
Re: Aerie (PA2005 -196)
SCII0 2007021054
Attached for your review and commnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Aeric (PA2005 -196) draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency.
This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely
manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the
environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
.James Campbell
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
wium a ropy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCII number
noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at
(916) 445 -0613.
Sit errly,
✓ �I
As S Nlnrgan
Project Analyst. State ('Iearinghouse
Auachments
cc: Lead Agency
140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
(916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wvnv.opr.ca.goV
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2007021054
Project Title Aerie (PA2005 -196)
Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of
Type NOP Notice of Preparation
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 62,709 square
feet and includes living area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In
addition, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing
gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities on the site. Eight (8) replacement slips and a guest
side -tie dock are proposed. Project implementation wil necessitate the approval of a General Plan
Amendment (GP2005 -006), Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002), Zone Change
(CA2005 -009), Tract Map (NT2005- 004/7716882), Modification Permit (MD2005 -087), and Coastal
Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002).
Lead Agency Contact
Name
James Campbell
Agency
City of Newport Beach
Phone
(949) 644 -3210 Fax
email
Address
3300 Newport Boulevard
City
Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663
Project Location
County Orange
City Newport Beach
Region
Cross Streets Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue
Lat /Long 33° 37' 00" N / 117° 53' 51" W
Parcel No.
Township
Proximity to:
Highways 1
Airports
Railways
Waterways Pacific Ocean
Schools
Range
Section Base
Land Use Existing Land Use: Residential (15 dwelling units)
Existing Zoning: R -2 (Two - family Residential) and MFR (Multiple- family Residential, 2,178 sq ft
land /unit)
General Plan: RT (Two -unit Residential) and RM (Multiple Residential - 20 du /ac)
Project issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Drainage /Absorption;
Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Soil Erosion /CompactioniGrading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation;
Vegetation; Water Quality; Wildlife: Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; California Coastal Commission;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game,
Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; State Lands Commission;
Caltrans, District 12; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Region 8
Date Received 09/10/2008 Start of Review 09/10/2008 End of Review 1010912008
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
ulsSrioution LIST
Resources Agent;
Resources Agency
y7� Nadell Gayou
1111 Dept. of Boating & Waterways
David Johnson
California Coastal
Commission
Elizabeth A. Fuchs
❑ Colorado River Board
Gerald R. Zimmerman
❑ Dept. of Conservation
Sharon Howell
❑ California Energy
Commission
Dale Edwards
❑ Cal Fire
DAllen Robertson
'mil Office of Historic
Preservation
Wayne Donaldson
Dept of Parks & Recreation
Environmental Stewardship
Section
❑ Central Valley Flood
Protection Board
Mark Herald
❑ S.F. Bay Conservation &
Dev't. Comm.
Steve McAdam
pU Dept. of Water Resources
Resources Agency
Nadell Gayou
J ___
Conservancy
:ish and Game
Depart. of Fish & Game
Scott Flint
Environmental Services Division
Fish & Game Region 1
Donald Koch
7 Fish & Game Region 1E
Laude Hamsberger
❑ Fish & Game Region 2
Jeff Drongesen
❑ Fish & Game Region 3
Robert Floorke
❑ Fish & Game Region 4
Juile Vance
Fish & Game Region 5
Don Chadwick
Habitat Conservation Program
❑
Fish & Game Region 6
Gabrina Galchel
Habitat Conservation Program
❑ Fish & Game Region 61 /M
Gabrina Getchel
Inyo /Mono, Habitat Conservation
Program
❑ Dept. of Fish & Game M
George Isaac
Marine Region
Other Departments
❑ Food & Agriculture
Steve Shaffer
Dept, of Food and Agriculture
❑ Depart. of General Services
Public School Construction
❑ Dept. of General Services
Anna Garbeff
Environmental Services Section
❑ Dept. of Public Health
Veronica Malloy
Dept. of Health/Drinking Water
Independent
Corn missions, Boards
❑ Delta Protection Commission
Debby Eddy
❑ Office of Emergency Services
Dennis Cashillo
❑ Governors Office of Planning
& Research
State Clearinghouse
Native American Heritage
Comm.
Debbie Treadway
County: yY Lk 1
Caltrans, District 1
❑ Public Utilities Commission
❑ Caltrans, District 0
Ken Lewis
Dan Kopulsky
❑ Santa Monica Bay Restoration
❑ Caltrans, District 9
Guangyu Wang
Gayle Rosander
® State Lands Commission
❑ Caltrans, District 10
Marina Brand
Tom Dumas
❑ Tahoe Regional Planning
❑ Caltrans, District 11
Agency (TRPA)
Jacob Armstrong
Cherry Jacques
David Murray
❑
Caltrans, District 12
R P Ct b I '
Business. Trans & Housin
❑ Caltrans - Division of
Aeronautics
Sandy Hesnanl
❑ Caltrans - Planning
Terri Pencovic
California Highway Patrol
Shirley Kelly
Office of Special Projects
❑ Housing & Community
Development
CEQA Coordinator
Housing Policy Division
Dept. of Transportation
❑
Caltrans, District 1
Rex Jackman
❑
Caltrans, District
Marceline Gonzalez
❑
Caltrans, District 3
Bruce de Terra
❑
Caltrans, District
Lisa Carboni
❑
Caltrans, District
David Murray
❑
Caltrans, District 6
Michael Navarro
❑
Caltrans, District
Elmer Alvarez
yen . ram e r a in
Cal EPA
Air Resources Board
❑ Airport Projects
y7y Jim Lemer
16rJ Transportation Projects
Ravi Ramalingarn
❑ Industrial Projects
Mike Tollstrup
SICH# 20070210,54
Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
❑ California Integrated Waste
Management Board
Sue O'Leary
❑ State Water Resources Control
Board
Regional Programs Unit
Division of Financial Assistance
❑ State Water Resources Control
Board
Student Intent, 401 Water Quality
Certification Unit
Division of Water Quality
❑ Stale Water Resouces Control Board
Steven Herrera
Division of Water Rights
❑ Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
CEQA Tracking Center
❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation
CEQA Coordinator
❑ RWQCB 1
Cathleen Hudson
North Coast Region (1)
❑ RWQCB 2
Environmental Document
Coordinator
Son Francisco Bey Region (2)
❑ RWQCB 3
Central Coast Region (3)
❑ RWQCB 4
Teresa Rodgers
Los Angeles Region (4)
❑ RWQCB SS
Central Valley Region (5)
❑ RWQCB 5F
Central Valley Region (5)
Fresno Branch Office
❑ RWQCB 5R
Central Valley Region (5)
Redding Branch Office
❑ RWQCB 6
Lahontan Region (6)
❑ RWQCB 6V
Lahontan Region (6)
Viclorville Branch Office
❑ RWQCB7
Colorado River Basin Region (7)
RWQCB S
Santa Ana Region (8)
❑ RWQCB9
San Diego Region (9)
❑ Other
Last Updated an 0811312008
SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES
1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE /FAX (714) 754 -0814
October 10, 2008
James Campbell
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915
Subject: NOP, Aerie Residential Project (PA 2005 -196)
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an
environmental impact report (EIR) for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) located at
201 -207 Carnation Avenue in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. These comments are
submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and myself.
The project will entail demolition of an existing residential uses to construct an 8 -unit
condominium building with subterranean parking. The project also includes the demolition,
reconstruction and expansion of dock structures on the site.
The NOP
No Initial Study (IS) accompanies the NOP. Inclusion of an Initial study with a NOP is optional.
However, in accordance with Section 15082 (a) of the Guidelines for the implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), at a minimum, a notice of preparation shall
include:
(A) Description of the project,
(B) Location of the project, and
(C) Probable environmental effects of the project.
An IS is often utilized to fulfill the function of (C) above.
While the NOP includes a lengthy project description and location map, any discussion of
probable environmental effects of the project is lacking. The NOP merely indicates that the
following broad subject areas are proposed to be examined in the EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Air quality
• Biological resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and soils
Page I of 5
• Hazards/hazardous materials
• Hydrology /water quality
• Land uselplanning
• Noise
• Transportation/traffic
and that the following areas are not:
• Agricultural resources
• Mineral resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and facilities
• Utilities
• Recreation
The description of the existing conditions in the NOP focuses on man -made development on the
site, failing to mention either land or marine resources such as eelgrass habitat or sand dollar
beds. Thus, agencies receiving the NOP would have no knowledge of the potential for impacts
to such resources. Because project tracking and degree of scrutiny by the agencies may be
established at the NOP stage, this omission is significant. The NOP must be revised to include a
description of probable environmental effects of the proposed project consistent with Guidelines
Section 15082(a) and re- circulated.
Proiect Alternatives
The applicant's representative has asserted that staff will be making a particular recommendation
for approval for the proposed project. The City is reminded that the EIR is to be an integral part
of the decision making process, not an after - the -fact bureaucratic exercise. It is the purpose of
CEQA "not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with
environmental consequences in mind ". (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263).
The EIR must include a meaningful, good -faith analysis of alternatives. Alternatives to be
examined include:
1. An entitlement, in terms of both dwelling unit count and floor area ratio, commensurate
with a land area excluding areas submerged at high tide. This must be based on real,
physical conditions for the site as it currently exists.
2. An entitlement, in terms of both dwelling unit count and floor area ratio, based only on
buildable acreage, excluding steep slopes in excess of 2:1 slope and excluding areas
submerged at high tide. This must be based on real, physical conditions for the site as it
currently exists.
3. The elimination of all penetrations below the PLOED including but not limited to any
exit tunnel cut through the bluff face.
4. Provision of an adequate and reasonable setback from the PLOED.
5. Project LEED certified at the Platinum level.
6. No project.
Page 2 of 5
7. Open space.
Potential Impacts
Concerns regarding specific impacts which must be examined in the EIR include the following:
Aesthetics
1. Aesthetic analyses must include impacts from public waterways as well as from land
based viewing areas.
2. The analysis must address impacts to the visual quality of the shoreline as well as the
bluff.
3. Potential for light and glare must be addressed, with special attention given to the large
expanses of glass proposed for the portion of the project facing the water.
Air Quality
1. The analysis must address localized emissions, particularly during construction. This
includes fugitive dust and diesel emissions from on -site construction equipment as well
as any hot spots along haul routes or those created due to construction congestion or
detours.
2. Greenhouse gases must be addressed.
3. Emissions from boats, including generators, must be addressed. To the extent feasible,
vessel equipment should be powered by connection to the electric utility system when
vessels are docked.
4. The analysis must address venting of below grade parking, particularly any areas where
concentrations of garage exhaust may vent toward neighbors.
Biological Resources
1. Impacts on eelgrass beds must be addressed, including ongoing impacts from dock
utilization. Avoidance is the preferred option.
2. Impacts on sand dollar beds must be addressed. Avoidance is the preferred option.
3. Adequate buffers must be identified and provided.
4. The EIR must address reduction of sunlight to the marine habitat resulting from the
expanded docks and the larger vessels to be accommodated.
5. Land resources, including vegetation, must also be examined.
6. Impacts on avifauna due to reflective surfaces must be examined.
7. Impacts due to noise and night lighting must be examined. This includes impacts on
marine life.
8. Biological impacts due to impacts on water quality must be addressed.
Geology and soils
1. This section must address any instability in surrounding areas due to excavation on the
subject property. This must include any impacts on public infrastructure or utilities.
2. The EIR must include grading plans and cross sections.
Hazards/hazardous materials
1. The EIR must address materials which may be released into the air or water during
Page 3 of 5
demolition, including asbestos and lead based paints.
2. The EIR must examine the effect of construction activities on evacuation routes and
emergency response. Of greatest concern is continued access to all homes on Carnation
Avenue.
Hydrology/Water Quality
1. The analysis must address impacts during construction and demolition of on -site facilities
on water quality, including disturbance of existing sediments.
2. The analysis must address any heavy metals, pesticides or other materials in on -site
sediments which may be disturbed during dock construction/demolition.
3. Long term impacts on water quality associated with the docks must be addressed.
4. Impacts due to urban runoff must be addressed.
5. Any impacts on sand transport/shoreline processes must be addressed. This includes
impacts on and off the project site.
Land Use/Planning
1. It is not clear what portion of the site consists of tidelands and is thus subject to the
tidelands trust doctrine. Appropriate use of tidelands must be addressed. Residential
uses are not normally considered appropriate uses of tidelands and thus any tidelands
areas must be excluded when calculating allowable density.
2. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15125(d) the EIR must discuss any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing planning programs.
3. Public access to the shoreline, both from land and water, must be addressed.
Noise
I. SENELs as well as CNELs must be addressed.
2. Noise must be addressed in terms disturbance or discomfort to humans, not just
conformance with ordinances that may exempt certain types of noise from regulation.
3. Potential for noise to carry across the water must be addressed.
4. Temporary relocation of sensitive receptors must be considered as mitigation.
Transportation/Traffic
1. Impacts on haul routes must be addressed.
2. Impacts on emergency response and evacuation routes must be addressed.
3. Public rights of way must not be used as storage areas or staging areas.
4. Mitigation strategies must provide for at least one lane of traffic to be available for access
to Carnation Avenue at all times.
Population and Housing
1. The project must be evaluated in light of city policies regarding inclusionary housing.
2. The project must be evaluated in light of housing requirements in the coastal zone
stipulated in Section 65590 of the California Government Code.
Public Services and Utilities
1. Impacts on utilities and public services, including but not limited to police protection, fire
Page 4 of 5
protection, and the Harbor Patrol, must be examined.
2. Potential disruption to navigation or Harbor Patrol services must be examined.
3. Any potential for disruption of public services and utilities during construction must be
examined. Of particular concern are impacts due to excavation.
4. Examination of impacts associated with energy consumption must include unique project
features which will consume energy, including automobile elevators and any need for
mechanical ventilation of below ground parking.
Recreation
The EIR must examine how the greatly expanded dock area and larger vessels may block off the
shoreline and discourage access to the existing, open cove.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR when it
becomes available.
Yours truly,
Sandra L. Genis
Page 5 of 5
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Project: Aerie (PA2005 -196)
Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the
intersection of Ocean Boulevard) & 101 Bayside Place
Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Having received a copy of your notice on September 12, 2008 stating that the City of
Newport Beach has determined the proposed project will require the preparation of an
EIR (sent to us by Keeton Kreitzer); this letter represents our response and comments
within the thirty day time period.
In reviewing the potentially significant environmental effects that will be evaluated in the
EIR, we would like to bring to your attention several issues that were overlooked and
must be included in the study.
One issue in particular that will obviously create significant impacts by
substantially increasing the mass of the project to its current proposed size of
approximately 62,282 square feet is the unreasonable calculation used in
determining the buildable area of the property. The site is 61,284 square feet (1.4
acres). What has never been addressed by the City in response to the public's
outcry over the massive size of the proposed structure is that approximately 66%
of the property is either submerged land (28,414 square feet or 46% of the site), or
unbuildable slope greater than 50% (11,926 square feet or 20% of the site). The
City uses two different calculations to determine "buildable area ", the Density
Calculation and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the density calculation the
submerged land and slope in excess of 50% "are removed" from the land area
before calculating density, but in the FAR calculation the submerged lands and
slope "are not" removed before calculating build -able area. While the inclusion
of the slope in excess of 50% in the buildable area is arguable, the inclusion of the
submerged land in the buildable area is ridiculous. If the maximum square footage
calculation removed the land area within the front and side yard setbacks and the
submerged land area (and it should because the submerged land area is NOT
buildable) and allowed the slope in excess of 50% to be included, the buildable
area would be approximately 29,300 square feet. Multiplying this buildable area
by the FAR factor of 1.5, which is the norm for the area, would result in a
maximum square footage of approximately 44,000 square feet, a whopping 30%
smaller building than currently proposed. Further, this reasonable calculation
would result in a project that provides a per unit square footage of approximately
5,500 square feet, a per unit size that still exceeds the size and scale of residential
structures in the area, whether single family or multi family. Conversely, the city
is recommending approval of a project that provides 8 units in 62,000 square feet
or 7,750 square feet per unit. (It is important to note that the existing structures
total approximately 16,498 square feet in 13 units or roughly 1,270 square feet per
unit.)
The fact that there are no other condominiums or single family homes in the
neighborhood that even come close to 7,750 square feet has been brought to the
attention of the Planning Commission multiple times, as has the massive size of the
project. The inclusion of the submerged land in the buildable area calculations results
in a humongous mass of a structure that is completely out of scale and character with
the existing neighborhood and surrounding area to the point of dwarfing other
structures and therefore in violation of the General Plan and LCP bluff protection
policies. This is NOT the norm for other properties in the City or for other
properties located on sensitive coastal bluffs in Corona del Mar. The McIntosh home
adjacent to the subject property did not include submerged lands in their buildable
area. The question remains, why has this not been addressed before, and how can it
be acceptable to allow land that is unusable and unlivable to ever be considered as
buildable area in the proposal of such an unreasonable building mass?
2. Another important issue per your notice that was NOT going to be addressed in
the EIR is "Recreation ". This study must be included since the proposed addition
of eight boat docks plus a guest dock in this new configuration will project much
further into the harbor than the existing dock, and will significantly limit the
recreational use of Carnation Cove and this part of the harbor by restricting
access. This area is frequently used for recreation by kayakers, paddlers and
small boats. Relevant to the EIR, it is important to note that at a preliminary
Harbor Commission meeting on the proposed dock system the majority of
Commissioners expressed concern that the docks and large vessels would project
so far into the harbor that it would interfere with the flow of boat traffic and the
public right -of -way. According to the most recent plans submitted to the Harbor
Commission the docks would project approximately 61' beyond the bulkhead line
with two 60' boats in their slips. This is much further out than the existing dock,
and the docks on either side of the subject property, the McIntosh dock to the East
and the Sprague dock to the west. In addition to the proposed dock system a 155'
wave attenuator wall is proposed which would further limit public access to the
cove and could cause "major shoaling problems ", as could the construction of
such a large marina, which was also of concern to the Harbor Commission.
Furthermore, any environmental evaluation should study the possibility that the
wave attenuator may redirect a swell to impact other areas of the harbor, such as
across the bay on the Peninsula, since for years the existing cove has acted as a
natural buffer.
3. Attention must be given in the EIR to the importance of Carnation Cove and its
existence as "an important marine relic habitat that no longer exists in other areas
of Newport Bay" as stated in the most recent MND, which was the first MND to
include any mention of the dock expansion plan. The scenic rock formations
would be obscured from public view by the boats in the proposed marina, and
possibly damaged during construction. The MND also states that "in addition to
eelgrass, the study determined that Carnation 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 ". It was laughable that in a discussion on mitigating impacts to
the sand dollar population in the cove at the City Council meeting on July 22,
2008 it was suggested that construction workers be told to "avoid them by going
around the areas where there are sand dollars ". The importance of Carnation
Cove should be noted, and that it is the last existing natural cove in Newport
Harbor other than Pirate's Cove.
4. The proposed excavation will reshape the bluff edge, remove substantial mass
from the natural landform, and create a hazardous condition that will either result
in an increased vulnerability to bluff erosion, or to rockfall and block failure of
the portion of the bluff that is below the established Predominant Line of Existing
Development ( PLOED). This raises public safety concerns that will require
railings and/or other protection devices since the massive excavation will result in
a sheer drop -off as it cuts 40 -50 feet straight down from the curb. As this is a
designated Public View Corridor, the City should be aware of the potential for
injury that could occur, and also that the necessary protection devices are
prohibited by the CLUP. These protection devices will also have negative
aesthetic impacts on the view from this area. As stated in the Staff Report of June
19, 2008, "Guardrails are necessary to protect pedestrians from falling from the
public sidewalk along Carnation Avenue over the proposed retaining wall located
at the back of the sidewalk ".
5. Another important issue that must be evaluated is the excavation required for the
emergency exit "tunnel" cut through the bluff face at 40.5 feet, which is well
below the PLOED of 50.7 feet given to the applicant by the City Council, and in
clear violation of CLUP and LCP policies. The excavation for this "cut- through"
or "tunnel" will have a tremendous impact on the bluff face, most likely causing
failure of the thin portion of bluff that would remain as a fagade (see expert
testimony and public record correspondence from Moote Group, John Martin and
Associates, David H. Lee and Associates, respected architects and other well -
known builders and developers, and from the environmental group SPON). That
this is likely has been publicly acknowledged by Brion Jeanette, the project's
architect, both in his plans and presentation, that "fake rock" will be needed to
replace a part or possibly all of the bluff face damaged by this excavation. This is
in violation of the City's own codes and GP, to damage or destroy the coastal
bluff by attempting to go below the 50.7 foot PLOED. The PLOED average for
Carnation Avenue properties is 53.7 feet.
6. Also, as stated in the Notice of Preparation of EM we can only question "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 ". It is unclear how a pool will be excavated at
the subterranean level, again, well below the PLOED of 50.7 feet, without
damage to the bluff face. Or perhaps it is also an access tunnel/doorway to the
pool or beach? Although labeled an "emergency exit" on the plans it appears it is
clearly intended to be used on a regular basis by the occupants of the building and
others, and has been offered as such to the Harbor Resources Department for the
use of their employees whenever they are in the area, despite having their own
facilities just a few blocks from the proposed site. But regardless of how it is
presented, it is obvious that the use of hoe rams and other heavy excavation
equipment necessary for the proposed "tunnel" and "pool ", as well as the
subterranean portion of the project will severely impact the bluff and bluff face,
potentially causing bluff failure, as well as damage to surrounding properties and
streets. (See above referenced expert testimony from paragraph 5).
Other issues that must be included when evaluating "Aesthetics" are the proposed
multiple cantilevered decks and overhangs which would project out 10 -15 feet
and violate several CLUP and General Plan policies that are supposed to protect
scenic and visual resources such as coastal views and scenic vistas. These include
CLUP Policies 4.4 and 4.4.1 -1, among others, Policy NR 23. 1, as well as Section
30251 of the Coastal Act. There are also other bluff protection policies and bluff
set -back policies that must be considered. "Outdoor patios, decks, spas and
firenits are proposed at each above grade level ", with the firepits being a new
addition that could affect air quality in the neighborhood, harbor and surrounding
area. The visual impact of this hotel -like structure, including decks with
umbrellas and awnings, must be considered as it will impact public views from
the Ocean Boulevard view corridor and Begonia Park, and be visible from Balboa
Island, the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Harbor.
8. In the study of "Noise ", it must be taken into account the noise impacts on the
residents "across the bay ", on the Balboa Peninsula, as well as in the immediate
neighborhood. In a previous correspondence to the City we cited an instance
where the police were called with a noise complaint at the Vallejo home, but the
noise was actually from a party at a home" across" the harbor. Due to the
proposed massive excavation and the equipment involved in that excavation (hoe
rams, pile drivers etc.), it should be noted that any construction work done across
the bay on the Balboa Peninsula can be heard in this area of Corona del Mar, and
that there has been nothing constructed across from here that is on a comparable
scale to the proposed project, and with the potential for such extreme noise
impact. Another example of how sound travels, and is magnified across the
water, is that children can be heard playing on the public beach on the peninsula.
9. We expect that the impacts from the vibrations and the potential damage to
surrounding properties and streets will be thoroughly studied for a proposed
excavation of this size, and that the impacts from the use of hoe rams, pile drivers
and other heavy equipment will be examined thoroughly.
10. Another issue that was not studied sufficiently but was mentioned in past staff
reports due to possible code violations is the impact to the neighborhood of the
highly inconvenient parking configuration. It appears there will be approximately
30 subterranean parking spaces accessed by two car elevators, with one elevator
that must remain at the subterranean level at all times for emergencies. This
parking configuration is a direct result of trying to put such a large building mass
on such a constrained property and creates many potential problems including
blocking of the public right -of -way if the elevators are in use and there is queuing
into the street. This could result in a potentially hazardous situation on what is
already a blind corner, as cars in the public right -of -way may attempt to go
around those queuing in the street. This is especially true on weekends and
during the summer, when the streets are congested with beachgoers looking for
on- street parking. This is addressed in Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP, as well as two
Circulation Element Policies including policy CE 71.1, which are in place to
protect our neighborhoods from this kind of negative impact. It should be noted
that the use of a subterranean parking garage for a multi - family residential
complex is unprecedented in the City of Newport Beach, and will add a
significant number of cars to the neighborhood. There is also the additional
explosion risk in an enclosed parking structure of this type.
11. In the category of `Biological Resources" it should be noted that the applicant had
native plant species stripped from the bluff in approximately December of 2007.
Photos of the native species that had previously existed include Lemonadeberry
(Rhus integrifolia), Coast Sunflower (Encelia califomica) and California
Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Apparently the California Coastal
Commission issued a violation regarding this, along with direction to replant the
native vegetation, which, it appears, has not been attempted.
12. In reference to the oversized and overbuilt nature of the proposed project, Land
Use Policy 3.2 states: "Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts and corridors,
allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form,
scale and character ".
13. Land Use Policy 5.1.1 states: "Establish property development regulations for
residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that
contribute to neighborhood character ".
It must be pointed out that in the Notice of Preparation of EIR it states that "south and
east of the Site are a mix of family and multi - family residential buildings and the
Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean
Boulevard and Newport Harbor ". It should also have been stated that Ocean
Boulevard allows development on the bluff face since there is a height limit of no
more than 3 feet above curb height. The subject property is on Carnation, where
properties are located "on top" of the bluff and do not have this height restriction.
Since this point was obviously ignored after having been brought to the attention of
the Planning Commission in May of 2007 shouldn't it have been clarified in this
notice? The project's architect, who also does advisory work for the City, continues
to use examples of other bluff developments he has done that are not relevant to this
project due to the difference in location and codes. Clearly this project has been
flawed from the beginning in its attempt to make the proposed structure "as large as
possible" by using their own rules, and has been allowed to progress by attempting to
manipulate a City's legal process, its Planning Commission, staff, the language of the
CLUP and the PLOED, (which they decided on themselves), as well as an entire
neighborhood. Until recently this plan had succeeded, and all in an attempt to
overbuild for profit at the expense of the existing neighborhood, public coastal views,
and a protected coastal bluff. Had a group of concerned citizens not taken notice,
studied the policies and codes, had meetings, hired attorneys and independent experts
to testify against the untruths and misinformation that have been perpetuated
throughout this process, this project would have passed at 73,000+ square feet,
without the necessary due diligence, and the question "how could this happen in our
City ?" would have been asked after the fact, and the City and its residents would
forever live with a massive overbuilt structure that would set precedent for future
condominium complexes in the City. Many citizens requested an EIR on this project
for more than a year and had been repeatedly denied, when the project itself should
have been denied. Why is it the job and financial responsibility of private citizens to
monitor the Planning Commission and staff? No more inadequate MND's that were
re- circulated multiple times. We expect a professional, unbiased and accurate EIR to
finally be done on this project. Anything less would a travesty for us and other
concerned citizens, as well as for the City of Newport Beach and its New General
Plan.
Sincerely,
Joseph and Lisa Vallejo
Kathleen and John McIntosh
RECEIVED BY
rAANNING DEPARTMENT
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4178 fit' T Ch NEWPORT BEACH
Cdp H
" ( (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov
September 16, 2008
Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P_O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the
Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -
mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality
impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft environmental impact report (EIR). Please send
the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the draft EIR all
appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality
modeling and health risk assessment riles. Without all tiles and supporting air quality documentation, the
SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of (lie air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in
providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the
comment period.
Air Oualitv Analvsis
The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist
other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency
use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the
SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396 -3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to
consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved URBEMIS 2007 Model. This model is available
on the SCAQMD Website at: www.urbemis.com.
The Lead Agency should identity any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the
project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including
demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction- related air quality impacts typically include, but
are not limited to. emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment from grading, earth- loading/unloading, paving,
architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources
(e.g.. construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation- related air quality impacts may include,
but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and
vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources,
that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis.
The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational
activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also
developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify
PM2.5 emissions and compare the results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for
calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internee address:
ht�pt : / /w-%ti w.agmd. og v/cega/handbook[PM2 5 /PM2 5.html.
Mr. James Campbell -2- September 16, 2008
In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality
impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the
recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA
document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead
agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing
dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at
hltp ;'www. agmd. gowcega /handbook/LST' /LST.html.
It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel -
fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk
assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk Isom Mobile Source Diesel Idling
Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following
intemet address: ht to:/hvww.agmd.gov /cega /hatdbook /mobile toxic /mobile toxic.html. An analysis of all toxic air
contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should
also be included.
Mitigation Measures
In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible
mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to
minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible
mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter I 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for
sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web
pages at the following intemet address: www agmd f ov /eeoa /handbook /mitigation /MM intro.html Additionally,
SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling
construction - related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other
measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for
Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following
intemet address: http: / /wwnv.aclmd.ao`lprdas /aq t <lelauguide.html. In addition, guidance on sitting incompatible land
uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Perspective, which can be found at the following intemet address: hltp:// www.arb.ca.eov /ch /liandbogk.pdf. Pursuant
to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed.
Data Sources
SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information
Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available
via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage littp: / /www.agrnd.gov).
The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project - related emissions are accurately
identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Daniel Garcia, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396-
3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith. Ph.D.
Program Supervisor, CEQA Section
Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources
SS:DG:AK
ORC08091 1 -04AK
Control Number