Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - 3.0_Balboa Marina West Landside - PA2015-113 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 17, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) 201 East Coast Highway • Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 • Minor Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY Irvine Company OWNER: PLANNER: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager (949) 644-3235, palford@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A minor site development review for a new 14,252-square-foot restaurant building with outdoor dining and a new 664-square-foot marina restroom building. And a conditional use permit for a restaurant (food service, late hours) with full alcoholic beverage service, and live entertainment, and a reduction in required off-street parking. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the attached resolution approving Minor Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030 (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 2 VICINITY MAP r: 7 . GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Recreational and Marine Commercial Recreational ON-SITE Marina, yacht brokerage, parking Commercial CM and Marine CM Recreational and Marine RV/boat storage, floating fish NORTH Commercial CM Planned Community market, pump station, parkin SOUTH Single-Unit Residential Single-Unit Residential Single-unit residences with Detached (RS-D) (R-1 private docks Recreational and Marine Commercial Recreational EAST Commercial CM and Marine (CRA) Restaurants and offices Multiple-Unit Residential Multi-Unit Residential WEST (RM)and Mixed-Use (RM)and Mixed-Use Apartments, office, marina Water Related MU-W2 Water Related MU-W2 3 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The project site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive. The project site comprises approximately 3.5 acres. It is currently developed with a 1,200-square-foot building, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms, 313-space surface parking (serving the marina and the adjacent SOL Cocina restaurant) and landscaping. Primary vehicular access is via East Coast Highway and secondary access is provided via Bayside Drive. The project site includes, though not part of this application, Balboa Marina. Balboa Marina is a private dock area with 107 boat slips, including four (4) public transient boat slips. In January 2015, the Harbor Resources Division issued an approval in concept for the expansion of Balboa Marina. The expansion involves the construction of a new public dock that would include a gangway and twelve (12) public boat slips including eight (8) new slips and four (4) slips to be relocated from the existing private marina. Twenty-four (24) new private boat slips and a new gangway are proposed in the private marina. A coastal development permit for the marina expansion is pending California Coastal Commission review. The project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking; on the south by water surface and the Linda Isle residential community and private residential docks; on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots; and on the west by the channel of Lower Newport Bay. Project Description The project would involve the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and the 1,200-square-foot yacht brokerage/restroom building located at 201 East Coast Highway. The site would be redeveloped with a 14,252-square-foot restaurant building and a 664-square-foot marina restroom building (see Attachment No. PC 2). The surface parking lot would provide approximately 250 spaces. The restaurant building would consist of a single story, with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. The restaurant building would have 9,030 square feet of net public area (377 seats) and a 1,255-square-foot outdoor deck dining area (40 seats). The architectural design can best be described as contemporary, with a sliding glass wall system, clerestory glazing, metal roof with skylights, and decorative steel accents. The restaurant operation would include late hours (9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily), full alcoholic beverage service, and live entertainment. It is anticipated that the restaurant would provide lunch and dinner service, with the potential for brunch service on 4 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 4 weekends. The outdoor deck hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., daily. Live entertainment would be in the form of a disc jockey (DJ) or other form of live entertainment, such as musicians and other forms of amplification sound. The technical noise study prepared by the applicant assumes that live entertainment would consist of a piano, or one or more musicians playing amplified guitars with accompanying vocals. All amplified sound would terminate at 1:00 a.m. Dancing was proposed as part of the original application. The applicant has since withdrawn this request. The proposed restroom building would replace the marina restrooms in the existing yacht brokerage building. The restrooms would be private, for use by Balboa Marina slip lessees, and maintained by the Irvine Company. Magnetic key cards would be issued to marina lessees for access. Background On October 2, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) for the Balboa Marina West project. Balboa Marina West consisted of: 1) a waterside component consisting of a public dock and marina expansion, and 2) a landside component including a conceptual plan for a 19,400-square-foot marine commercial building to house a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. After consideration of the mitigated negative declaration, public comments, and responses to comments, the Commission approved the ND2013-002 (see Attachment No. PC 3). On October 16, 2014, the Linda Isle Homeowners Association appealed the Commission's approval of a ND2013-002. On November 25, 2014, the City Council upheld and affirmed the Commission's approval of ND2013-002. DISCUSSION Analysis This analysis will be presented in three parts. The first part addresses the consistency with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies, including land use, development design, coastal hazards, transportation and parking, and public access. The second part addresses the design and operational characteristics, focusing on land use compatibility and parking. The third part addresses the findings and considerations required to approve the proposed project. Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 5 PART 1: GENERAL PLAN AND CLUP CONSISTENCY Land Use The General Plan Land Use Element and CLUP land use category for the project site is Recreation and Marine Commercial (CM). The CM 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, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. The CM land use category is implemented by the Commercial Recreation and Marine (CM) Zoning District. Food service, late hours uses (i.e., the restaurant) and marina support facilities (i.e., marina restrooms) are permitted in the CM Zoning District with the approval of use permits. The proposed project is consistent with CM land use category and zoning district. The proposed restaurant is a visitor-serving use. Also, the project would allow the continuation of existing coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses. Although not part of the proposed project, the Balboa Marina is a coastal-dependent use would continue and the project. The proposed project would also facilitate the expansion of the marina, including a new public dock. The marina restrooms and yacht brokerage are coastal- related uses. The existing restrooms would be replaced and the yacht brokerage would be relocated to a waterfront location in close proximity to the marina. The proposed project has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with applicable General Plan and CLUP land use policies. A consistency analysis with these policies is provided in Table 1 of Attachment No. PC 4. Development Design The proposed project is consistent with General Plan and CLUP policies relating to development design, which are intended to protect coastal resources and public access, and provide compatibility with adjacent land uses. The proposed project conforms to the height, setback, and floor area limits of the CM Zoning District. The proposed restaurant building provides a contemporary architectural design that is compatible with existing development and modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest. Also, architectural treatments are carried over on the southern elevation facing Linda Isle; a three (3) foot-high landscaped area is provided between the parking lot and the southern waterfront to provide screening; the project will be conditioned to screen and direct lighting away from residential areas. A consistency analysis with these policies is provided in Table 2 of Attachment No. PC 4. Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 6 Coastal Hazards The project site is not located within a coastal hazard area. However, a coastal hazards analysis was prepared which assumes the economic life of the proposed development at eight-five (85) years and a maximum sea level rise at year 2100 (85 year economic life) of 5.5 feet. With the current maximum sea level of 7.0 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), the maximum sea level rise through the economic life of the project would be an elevation of approximately 12.5 feet MLLW (7.0 feet + 5.5 feet). The conclusion is that sea level rise presents no risk to the planned structures, with the sole exception of the marina restroom which could be subject to periodic flooding in approximately fifty to sixty (50-60) years. Construction materials that withstand water could be used for the marina restroom so that loss of that structure could be avoided or mitigated. A consistency analysis with these policies is provided in Table 3 of Attachment No. PC 4. Transportation and Parking General Plan and CLUP contain policies relating to transportation and design, which are intended to promote alternative transportation and off-street parking sufficient to serve the approved use and minimize impacts to coastal access. The proposed project is consistent with these polices by providing new vertical access to the planned public dock, a connection to planned coastal accessways in the adjacent Back Bay Landing project, and bicycle racks. The proposed project also provides standard parking configurations and employs the proposed valet parking management plan during projected parking shortfalls in evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.). However, the valet operation needs to be flexible and adjusted based on parking demand. A consistency analysis with these policies is provided in Table 4 of Attachment No. PC 4. Public Access The proposed project is consistent with CLUP public access policies. The proposed project with expand and enhance public access by facilitating the development of, and providing vertical access to, a new public dock and by providing a connection to planned accessways in the adjacent Back Bay Landing project. A consistency analysis with these policies is provided in Table 5 of Attachment No. PC 4. PART 2: PROJECT DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISITCS Land Use Compatibility The proposed project would introduce a new commercial land use, a restaurant, into area that is located approximately 260 feet from the Linda Isle residential community. To minimize potential land use conflicts associated with the restaurant operation, the following is recommended: Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 7 • Outdoor Patio — The outdoor patio deck wraps around the west and south elevations of the restaurant. The dining area is limited to west side of the restaurant, as required per Condition of Approval No. 22. The south side, facing Linda Isle, is open and accessible in order to meet Building and Fire codes. Likewise, patrons strolling or congregating along the south side of the outdoor patio deck could expose nearby residents to single event noise disturbances. Therefore, per Condition of Approval No. 23, patrons shall be prohibited from this area. • Sliding Glass Walls — The proposed building plans show a "Sliding Glass Wall" system in the dining area on southwest corner of the restaurant. The acoustical study conducted for the project (Attachment No. PC 5) concludes that the City's residential nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA at some residences on Linda Isle when recorded music occurs inside and the sliding glass walls on the west side of the building are open. The acoustical study recommends that the sliding glass walls be replaced with fixed windows or installed with a lock. The NBPD also recommends that windows and doors remain closed after 7:00 p.m. to minimize noise impacts. Therefore, staff recommends that the sliding glass walls be replaced with fixed windows. • Loading Area/Service Entrance — The restaurant loading area and service entrance are located on the south elevation, facing Linda Isle. The acoustical study recommends prohibiting deliveries, loading/unloading, trash removal and other back of house activities between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays (Condition of Approval No. 15). • Marina Restrooms — The marina restroom building entrances would face Linda Isle. NBPD recommends that the marina restrooms close at 10:00 p.m. to minimize noise impacts (Condition of Approval No. 17). • Parking Area B — Parking Area B is located along the southern project boundary, across from Linda Isle. This area would be for self-parking by marina users and restaurant patrons. When needed, Parking Area B would be blocked with cones and closed to customers to allow for valet stacking, when needed. Activity in this parking area (i.e., car doors closing, loud stereos, car alarms, patrons talking, etc.) could expose nearby residents to single event noise disturbances. While the acoustical analysis did not specifically address noise from valet operations, the study did recommend posting signs in parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum (Condition of Approval No. 32). 8 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 8 Noise As required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1 of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013- 002, an acoustical study was prepared by a qualified acoustician (Attachment No. PC 5). The study concluded that with the design and operational noise control recommendations, the restaurant with the outdoor patio seating and dining area, can operate in compliance with the City's noise standards. Some of the recommendations of the acoustical study require changes or further specifications to the proposed building plans and operational restrictions: • Using 1-inch thick insulated glass on all windows and sliding glass walls. • Replacing the sliding glass wall on the south elevations with fixed windows or installing a lock so that it cannot be opened when not in use. • Using 0.25-inch glass entry doors and windows are well sealed and kept closed when not in use. • Using duel-glazed, inoperable skylights. • Constructing relatively high density exterior wall and roof systems. • A minimum 42-inch-high outdoor patio wall on the west and south elevations with minimal gaps. • Prohibiting deliveries, loading/unloading, trash removal and other back of house activities between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. • Posting signs within the restaurant and parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum. • Live entertainment would occur only in the bar/lounge area. • Sliding glass walls would be closed when live entertainment occurs. These recommendations will be incorporated into the conditions of approval. The acoustical study did not address noise from mechanical equipment (i.e., rooftop air conditioning units, kitchen exhaust fans, etc.) because restaurant building design has not been finalized. Therefore, the study recommends that additional noise control recommendations should be prepared during the final engineering stage of the design, 9 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 9 and should be based on final site plans, architectural plans, and mechanical equipment plans. Lighting and Glare The proposed project would provide a three (3) foot-high landscaped area between the parking lot and the southern waterfront to provide screening from vehicle headlights. No specifics are provided on lighting fixtures for the restaurant exterior and parking areas. The Mitigated Negative Declaration anticipated that lighting would be similar to existing lighting sources in the area with relatively low levels of illumination, and would appear similar in intensity to lighting associated with existing restaurant and residential uses in the area. Furthermore, standard conditions require compliance with Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the Zoning Code, which regulates outdoor lighting, and includes standards that are intended "...to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, overlighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures..." This section also authorizes the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Parking The proposed land uses require 356 off-street parking spaces per Section 20.40.040 of the Zoning Code. The proposed parking configuration would provide 250 spaces; thus, a parking shortfall of 106 parking spaces. However, under the proposed Valet Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. PC 6), 294 spaces would be provided, including 31 valet-stacked parking spaces and 13 tandem valet parking spaces (see Table 1 below). Table 1 Off-street Parking Analysis Land Use Parking Rate Required Spaces New restaurant 9,030 sf NPA 1 space/50 sf NPA [1] 181 Outdoor dining (225 sf NPA) [2] 5 Existing SOL Cocina restaurant 5,662 sf NPA [31 73 Marina 129 sli s 4 0.75 space/slip space/slip97 Total Zoning Code Required Spaces 356 Total Proposed Spaces (includes 44 valet and tandem 294 spaces) Shortfall 62 Notes: NPA = Net Public Area (customer-serving areas) [1] Parking requirement for food service uses within a range of 1 space for each 30 to 50 sf NPA [2] Only required for outdoor dining areas exceeding 25% of interior NPA or 1,000 sf, whichever is less [3] Based on the number of spaces documented in the building plans [41 Excludes the 12 "transient' boat slips in the public dock 10 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 10 In accordance with Section 20.40.060 (Parking Requirements for Food Uses) of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must establish the off-street parking requirement for food service uses within a range of one space for each thirty (30) to fifty (50) square feet of net public area, based on the project's physical design and operational characteristics and location. The applicant is proposing the upper limit of this range, one space for each fifty (50) square feet of net public area. The applicant maintains that the relatively large size and anticipated operational characteristics of the restaurant place a premium on the guest experience by prioritizing space and comfort over maximum capacity, which justifies the lower parking rate. Section 20.40.1103 (Reductions in Off-Street Parking) of the Zoning Code provides for reducing required off-street parking with the approval of a conditional use permit under the following conductions: • A parking study with sufficient data indicates that parking demand will be less than the required number of spaces or that other parking is available; or • Where two or more nonresidential uses on the same site or immediately adjacent sites have distinct and differing peak parking demands; or • When a parking management plan can mitigate impacts associated with a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The applicant proposes all three approaches to address the projected parking shortfall. The applicant conducted a site-specific parking study that indicates parking demand will be less than the code-required number of spaces (Attachment No. PC 7). Taking the existing weekday peak parking utilization (114 spaces between 7-8 p.m.) and weekend peak parking utilization (109 spaces between 7-8 p.m.) and factoring in the 186 spaces required for the proposed restaurant, the expansion of the marina, and the removal of the existing yacht broker, the proposed project is estimated to generate a weekday peak parking demand of 310 spaces between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. and a weekend peak parking demand of 305 spaces between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. Thus, the parking shortfall could actually be only sixteen (16) spaces weekdays and eleven (11) spaces on weekends, between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m., using the valet parking management program. The projected parking shortfall during evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) would be partially offset by the Valet Parking Management Plan. In order to accommodate the anticipated weekday and weekend evening parking shortfalls, the applicant proposes using the Bayside Shopping Center for additional parking in conjunction with the valet parking operation. The Bayside Shopping Center is located on the northwest corner of Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road, approximately 0.6 miles from the project site. The shopping center has a surplus parking count of sixteen (16) spaces, which is sufficient 11 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 11 to address the projected parking shortfall. Furthermore, the valet parking management plan requires employees working dinner shifts on Friday and Saturday to park at Bayside Shopping Center and carpool to the project site. Section 20.40.100 (Off-Site Parking) requires that off-site parking remain permanently available, marked, and maintained for the use it is intended to serve. Even though the Bayside Shopping Center is controlled by the applicant, a parking agreement guaranteeing the long-term availability of the off-site parking facility for the proposed project must be approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director and recorded with the County Recorder's Office (Condition of Approval No. 38). Coastal Access The proposed project includes the dedication of an eight (8) foot vertical (to the shoreline) public access easement that would provide access from East Coast Highway to the planned public dock (Condition of Approval No. 90). This public access easement would also provide a potential connection with the public accessways planned on the adjacent Back Bay Landing project. Because the Back Bay Landing accessways will be wider (12 feet-wide or more), staff would like to see the proposed project public access easement increased to ten (10) feet. The Public Works Director would be authorized to reduce the width back to eight (8) feet if this reduces the number of required off-street parking spaces. The provision of lateral access along the project site shoreline was considered. However, CLUP Policy 3.1.1-13 only requires dedication of an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. The project was determined to have an overall positive public access impact by virtue by facilitating the development of, and providing vertical access to, the a public dock and by providing a connection to future accessways in the planned Back Bay Landing project (see Table 5 of Attachment No. PC 4). Furthermore, the coastal development permit (CDP No. 5-07-241) for the previous Balboa Marina project determined that public access to the bay was already available nearby. PART 3: REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Alcoholic Beverage Sales When reviewing an application to allow an eating or drinking establishment to sell, serve, or give away alcohol, Section 20.48.090 (Eating and Drinking Establishments) of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to: • Evaluate the potential impacts upon adjacent uses (within 100 feet as measured between the nearest lot lines); and 12 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 12 • To consider the proximity to other establishments selling alcoholic beverages for either off-site or on-site consumption; and • Find that the use is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Zoning Code. Adjacent uses within 100 feet are Balboa Marina, SOL Cocina restaurant, and 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront restaurant; these uses are compatible and complementary to the proposed restaurant. The Linda Isla residential community is located approximately 260 feet south of the project. Land use compatibility issues were discussed in Part 2 of this report. SOL Cocina and 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront are on-sale alcohol sales establishments with Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place) Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licenses. In addition, the Chevron service station at 301 East Coast Highway has a Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license. The NBPD notes that the project site is located within a census tract with a per capita ratio of one (1) on-sale license for every 274 residents, which meets the criteria for undue concentration per the Business and Professions Code. While two of the on-sale establishments (SOL Cocina and 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront) are located in close proximity to the project site, the other three establishments are located at the Balboa Yacht Basin and Bayside Shopping Center; 0.7 miles and 0.6 miles away, respectively. In order to find that the proposed restaurant is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales), the Planning Commission must consider: a) The crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as compared to other areas in the City. b) The numbers of alcohol-related calls for service, crimes, or arrests in the reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts. c) The proximity of the establishment to residential zoning districts, day care centers, hospitals, park and recreation facilities, places of worship, schools, other similar uses, and any uses that attract minors. d) The proximity to other establishments selling alcoholic beverages for either off- site or on-site consumption. e) Whether or not the proposed amendment will resolve any current objectionable conditions. The project site is located within Reporting District (RD) 41, which includes the Balboa Yacht Basin, Bayside Shopping, Center, the Newport Dunes Resort, and the residential communities of Linda Isle, Newport Dunes, Harbor Island, Beacon Bay, Promontory 13 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 13 Point, Promontory Bay, and Bayside Village. For a map of the City of Newport Beach Reporting Districts, see Attachment No. PC 8. In 2014, RD 41 had reported crimes ten percent (10%) over the city-wide average. Forty-two percent (42%) of arrests were for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Public Intoxication, which NBPD believes points to the over-saturation of alcohol establishments. The project site is located in a commercial area. The adjacent commercial uses include Balboa Marina, SOL Cocina restaurant, 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront restaurant, and office and retail uses along Bayside Drive. The nearest residential area is Linda Isle, which is separated from the project site by a navigation channel. No day care centers, hospitals, park and recreation facilities, places of worship, schools, or other similar uses are in the immediate vicinity. The project site is located within Census Tract 0630.05. This census tract has a population of 1,372 with five (5) on-sale licenses. That is a per capita ratio of 1 license for every 274 residents. Per the Business and Professions code, the Police Department compares this per capita ratio to Orange County's per capita ratio of 1 license for every 737 residents. This ratio meets the criteria for undue concentration per the Business and Professions Code and will be evaluated by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they will be required to make a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). However, as stated earlier, only two on-sale establishments are located in close proximity to the project site. The project site is undeveloped with the exception of the existing marina, yacht brokerage building, and surface parking. No known objectionable conditions exist on the project site. NBPD has no objections to the operation given the proposed hours of operation, license type, and location of the use (see Attachment PC No. 9). NBPD is recommending the applicant provide a security plan and that all owners, managers, and employees selling alcoholic beverages be required to undergo and successfully complete an ABC- approved certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. These and other NBPD recommendations will be implemented through conditions of approval. NBPD believes that once a tenant is chosen for the restaurant and a complete business plan is compiled, they will be able to provide additional conditions and requirements through the Operator License process. In conclusion, alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed restaurant would be consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Zoning Code. Operating under the applicable regulations of the Municipal Code and the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed restaurant can maintain a healthy and safe environment for residents and businesses and prevent alcohol-related problems. 24 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 14 Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Section 20.52.020.E (Findings and Decision) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit: 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Per the General Plan consistency analysis provided in Attachment No. PC 4, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project is not covered by a specific plan. The proposed project is within the Commercial Recreation and Marine (CM) Zoning District. Food service, late hours uses (i.e., the restaurant) and marina support facilities (i.e., marina restrooms) are permitted in the CM Zoning District with the approval of use permits. The proposed project complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code and the off-street parking requirement was modified in accordance with Section 20.40.110.13 (Reductions in Off-Street Parking) of the Zoning Code. The design, size, location, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the adjacent restaurant uses; adequate vehicular access to the project site is provided via East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive and adequate public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and utilities exist for the site; and the design of the restaurant building will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, and will be approved by the Orange County Health Department. A site-specific acoustical and parking studies concluded that with the design and operational conditions, the proposed project will be compatible with surrounding land uses. In addition, the project includes conditions of approval to ensure that potential 15 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 15 conflicts with the surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible; and the operator is required to take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance within the facility, adjacent properties, or surrounding public areas, sidewalks, or parking lots of the restaurant, during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the establishment. Site Development Review Pursuant to Section 20.52.080.E (Findings and Decision) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a site development review: The proposed development is: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in subsection (C)(2)(c) of this section; and 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. The proposed restaurant is allowed in the Commercial Recreational and Marine Zoning District with the approval of a conditional use permit. The project's compliance with Section 20.52.080 (C)(2)(c) is outlined in the attached resolution. The project, with the recommended conditions, will not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Alternatives 1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific project modifications or operational changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If the changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow redesign of the project. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission should deny the application request (Attachment No. PC 10). 10 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 16 Environmental Review Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044) was prepared for Balboa Marina West, a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor, improvement and expansion of the existing Balboa Marina, and the construction of a 19,400 square feet marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K- 3. The mitigated negative declaration (MND) was made available for public review and comment during a 30-day review period beginning on August 18, 2014, and ending on September 17, 2014, and was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on October 4, 2014 and, on appeal, upheld and affirmed by the City Council on November 25, 2014 (see Attachment PC No 3). Staff reviewed the proposed project with the MND analysis (see Attachment No. PC 11) and concluded that a subsequent negative declaration for the project is not required to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because the proposed project has a significantly reduced floor area and height than the conceptual design previously analyzed and does not constitute "substantial changes" that would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or result in the adoption of mitigation measures. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager *na i, ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution PC 2 Project Plans 17 Balboa Marina West Landside December 17, 2015 Page 17 PC 3 ND2013-002 and MMRP(under separate cover)' PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis PC 5 Technical Noise Study PC 6 Balboa Marina Valet Parking Management Plan PC 7 Parking Demand Analysis for Balboa Marina PC 8 Police Reporting Districts Map PC 9 Police Department Memorandum PC 10 Draft Resolution for denial PC 11 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with MND No. ND2013-002 Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002 can be viewed and downloaded at htti)://www.newr)ortbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. 18 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution 19 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �o RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MINOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SD2015-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UP2015-030 FOR A RESTAURANT WITH FULL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OFF- STREET PARKING LOCATED AT 201 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2015-113) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 201 East Coast Highway, and legally described as TR 5361 LOT A POR OF LOT AND POR SW1/4 SEC 26 T 6 R 10 requesting approval of a minor site development review and a conditional use permit. 2. The applicant proposes a new 14,252-square-foot restaurant building with outdoor dining and a new 664-square-foot marina restroom building and a conditional use permit for a restaurant (food service, late hours) with full alcoholic beverage service and live entertainment, and a reduction in required off-street parking. 3. The subject property is located within the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). 5. A public hearing was held on December 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044) was prepared for Balboa Marina West, a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor, improvement and expansion of the existing Balboa Marina, and the construction of a 19,400 square feet marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K- 3. 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 20 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 was made available for public review and comment during a 30-day review period beginning on August 18, 2014, and ending on September 17, 2014. 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on October 4, 2014 and, on appeal, upheld and affirmed by the City Council on November 25, 2014. 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 is on file with the Community Development Department. 5. A subsequent negative declaration for the project is not required to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because the proposed project has a significantly reduced floor area and height than the conceptual design previously analyzed and does not constitute "substantial changes" that would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or result in the adoption of mitigation measures. 6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales), the Planning Commission must make the following finding for approval of a new alcoholic beverage license: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Zoning Code is maintained and that a healthy environment for residents and businesses is preserved. 2. Adjacent uses within 100 feet are Balboa Marina, SOL Cocina restaurant, and 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront restaurant, which are compatible and complementary to the proposed restaurant. 3. Although the project site is located within a census tract that meets the criteria for undue concentration of on-sale alcoholic beverage sales licenses, only two of the five 10-02-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### # Page 3 of 20 on-sale establishments are located in close proximity to the project site and the other three establishments are located at the Balboa Yacht Basin and Bayside Shopping Center; 0.7 miles and 0.6 miles away, respectively. 4. The Planning Commission considered all of the factors specified by Section 20.48.030 of the Zoning Code and found that alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed restaurant would be consistent with the purpose and intent of that section. 5. That operating under the applicable regulations of the Municipal Code and the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed restaurant can maintain a healthy and safe environment for residents and businesses and prevent alcohol-related problems. In accordance with Section 20.52.020.F (Conditional Use Permit, Findings and Decision) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Recreation and Marine Commercial (CM) land use 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, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor- serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. The CM land use category is implemented by the Commercial Recreation and Marine (CM) Zoning District. Food service, late hours uses (i.e., the restaurant) and marina support facilities (i.e., marina restrooms) are permitted in the CM Zoning District with the approval of use permits. 2. The proposed restaurant is a visitor-serving use. Also, the proposed project will allow the continuation of existing coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses. Although not part of the proposed project, the Balboa Marina is a coastal-dependent use will continue and the project. The proposed project will also facilitate the expansion of the marina, including a new public dock. The marina restrooms and yacht brokerage are coastal-related uses. The existing restrooms will be replaced and the yacht brokerage will be relocated to a waterfront location in close proximity to the marina. 3. The project site is not located within a Specific Plan area. 10-02-2015 2S Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 of 20 Finding: B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Commercial Recreational and Marine Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for commercial development on or near the waterfront that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on sites located on or near the bay. 2. The proposed restaurant is a visitor-serving use and is allowed in the Commercial Recreational and Marine Zoning District with the approval of a conditional use permit. 3. The proposed project conforms to the height, setback, and floor area limits of the Commercial Recreational and Marine Zoning District. 4. In accordance with Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off-Street Parking Requirements), the reduction in the amount of off-street parking is appropriate due to sufficient data of reduced parking demand, joint use of parking facilities by the marina and the proposed restaurant, a parking management program, and off-site parking. 5. As conditioned, the proposed project will comply with Newport Beach Municipal Code standards for eating and drinking establishments. Finding: C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site is located in an area with other eating and drinking establishments. 2. The proposed restaurant building provides a contemporary architectural design that is compatible with existing development and modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest. 3. When operated in compliance with the recommendations of the acoustical study and the recommended conditions, the restaurant with the outdoor patio seating and dining area, can operate in compliance with the City's noise standards. 4. The proposed project is conditioned to protect adjacent uses from light and glare. 10-02-2015 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##### Page 5 of 20 Finding: D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The design, size, location, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the adjacent restaurant uses. 2. Adequate vehicular access to the project site is provided via East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. 3. Adequate public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and utilities exist for the site. 4. The design of the restaurant building will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, and will be approved by the Orange County Health Department. Finding: E. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A site-specific acoustical study concluded that with the design and operational noise control recommendations, the restaurant, with the outdoor patio seating and dining area, can operate in compliance with the City's noise standards. The design and operational restrictions have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. 2. A site-specific parking study concluded that with the valet parking management plan and off-site parking, there will be sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the proposed land uses, thus avoiding parking impacts on adjacent properties and public streets. 3. The project includes conditions of approval to ensure that potential conflicts with the surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible. 4. The operator is required to take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance within the facility, adjacent properties, or surrounding public areas, sidewalks, or parking lots of the restaurant, during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the establishment. 10-02-2015 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##### Page 6 of 20 In accordance with Section 20.52.080.17 (Findings and Decision) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a site development review: The proposed development is: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Section 20.52.080 (C)(2)(c); and 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed restaurant is allowed in the Commercial Recreational and Marine Zoning District with the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. Section 20.52.080 (C)(2)(c) identifies the following criteria: • Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; • The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; • The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; • The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; • The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and • The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). The development is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and complies with the land use and development regulations of the Zoning Code. 10-02-2015 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###l## Page 7 of 20 The proposed restaurant building provides a contemporary architectural design that is compatible with existing development and modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest. The proposed project with expand and enhance public access by facilitating the development of, and providing vertical access to, a new public dock and by providing a connection to planned accessways in the adjacent Back Bay Landing project. A site-specific parking study concluded that with the valet parking management plan and off-site parking, there will be sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the proposed land uses, thus avoiding parking impacts on adjacent properties and public streets. The project will provide a three (3) foot-high landscaped area between the parking lot and the southern waterfront to provide screening. Landscaped areas will utilize water efficient plant and irrigation materials. The proposed project design will not negatively impact public access to public views to the ocean, harbor, bay, or other scenic coastal areas. 3. The project, with the recommended conditions, will not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Minor Site Development Review SD2015-003 and Conditional Use Permit UP2015-030, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 10-02-2015 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 8 of 20 BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 10-02-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###l## Page 9 of 20 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING 1 . The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. That the "net public area" of the restaurant shall not exceed 9,030 square feet for the interior of the subject restaurant facility. 3. The outdoor dining deck shall be used only in conjunction with the related adjacent establishment. The outdoor patio deck dining and seating area shall be limited to 1,255 square feet in area. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030 and Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 5. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 7. This Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 8. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review or the processing of a new Use Permit or Site Development Review. 9. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 10-02-2015 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 10 of 20 11. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site Development Review/Use Permit file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review/Use Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 13. The hours of operation for the interior of the restaurant shall be limited from 9:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m., daily. The last call for alcoholic beverages shall occur one half hour prior to the closing hour of the restaurant. 14. The hours of operation of the outdoor deck shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. through 12:00 a.m., daily. 15. Deliveries, loading, unloading, opening/closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, trash receptacles, or similar objects shall not be permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, or between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. 16. All windows and doors shall remain closed after 7:00 p.m. 17. The marina restrooms shall be closed between the hours of between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 18. The development shall incorporate the Preliminary Noise Control Recommendations identified in "Technical Noise Study for the Proposed Landside Development at Balboa Marina in the City of Newport Beach, CA" by Wieland Acoustics, Inc. dated October 26, 2015. 19. The sliding glass wall system shall be replaced with fixed windows. 20. Glass, metal, and other exterior building materials shall not have a high reflective value that could cause excessive glare. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, final noise control recommendations shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical professional during the final engineering stage of the design, and should be based on final site plans, architectural plans, and mechanical equipment plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. 10-02-2015 so Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 11 of 20 22. Location and types of dining tables and chairs shall be in substantial conformance with those depicted on the approved floor plan. The dining tables and chairs are not permitted to be moved to create standing areas for food and beverage service to patrons. 23. Restaurant patrons shall be restricted to the outdoor patio deck dining and seating area depicted on the approved site and floor plans; access to other areas of the outdoor patio deck shall be prohibited. 24. The installation of roof coverings shall not have the effect of creating a permanent enclosure. The use of umbrellas for shade purposes shall be permitted. The use of any other type of overhead covering shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and may require an amendment to this permit. 25. Live entertainment shall not be allowed in the eating and drinking establishment unless the operator has first obtained a live entertainment permit from the Revenue Division. 26. Live entertainment shall only be permitted in the bar/lounge area. 27. All doors and windows shall remain closed when live entertainment or recorded music occurs. 28. All amplified sound shall terminate at 1:00 a.m., daily. 29. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. 30. No amplified sound shall be utilized on the outdoor patio deck. 31. There shall be no dancing allowed on the premises. 32. The applicant/operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs at all outdoor dining, waiting, smoking and parking areas indicating to patrons the proximity of the restaurant and public dock and boat slip areas to the residential areas, requesting patrons: "Be courteous and respectful of our residential neighbors while outside the establishment'. 33. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with any approved Comprehensive Sign Program for the project site and provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 34. No temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site, to advertise the restaurant facility. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right- of-way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 10-02-2015 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##### Page 12 of 20 35. The All lighting shall conform to the standards of Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting). The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 36. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Pre-recorded music may be played in the tenant space, provided exterior noise levels outlined below are not exceeded. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time period unless the ambient noise level is higher: Between the hours of 7:OOAM Between the hours of and 10:OOPM 10:OOPM and 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA 100 feet of a commercial property Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 37. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 38. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department and the Office of the City Attorney for review and approval, a parking agreement guaranteeing the long-term availability of a minimum of sixteen (16) off-site parking spaces for the project. Upon approval by the City Attorney, the agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required. 40. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 41. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and 10-02-2015 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 13 of 20 trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 42. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self-latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 43. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right-of- way. 44. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 45. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 46. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 47. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on- site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 48. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Balboa Marina West Landside including, but not limited to, Use Permit No. UP2015-030 and Site Development Review No. SD2015-003. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing 10-02-2015 33 Planning Commission Resolution No. #kms# Page 14 of 20 the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 49. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Planning Division shall be provided evidence that the construction contractor is trained to identify suspected archaeological resources; or, a professional archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor ground-disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed native soils. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Planning Division shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan(s): "If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall temporarily halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find until a qualified archaeologist can be called to the site to assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Newport Beach." The grading contractor shall be responsible for complying with the note. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) criteria for cultural significance, construction shall be permitted to proceed. However, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the Planning Division shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City, which may include the implementation of a Phase II and/or III archaeological investigation per City guidelines. All significant cultural resources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The archaeologist shall incorporate analysis and interpretation of any significant find(s) into a final Phase IV report that identifies the level of significance pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2(G). The City and Project Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that resources are recovered (Mitigation Measure MM CR-1). 50. During Project grading and construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that possible locations where the USTs may have been located, either near the existing building or along the western side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land-side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks removals (Mitigation Measure MM HM-1). 51. The following Condition of Approval shall be placed on the Project's demolition permits. COA: All demolition permits shall comply with: a) SCAQMD Rule 1403 with respect to asbestos containing materials. 10-02-2015 S4 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### # Page 15 of 20 b) Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which addresses the removal of components painted with lead-based paint (LBP). c) Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) regarding the removal and disposal of PCBs (Mitigation Measure MM HM-2). Fire Department Conditions 52. Roads shall be capable of supporting 72,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus and designed as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. C.F.C. Sec. 503.2.3. 53. The inside turning radius for an access road shall be 20 feet or greater. The outside turning radius shall be a minimum of 40 feet. Cul-de-sacs with center obstruction (islands) will require a larger turning radius as approved by the fire code official (see NBFD Guideline C.01 & C.F.C. Sec. 503.2.4). 54. On-site fire hydrants and mains shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow (see NBFD Guideline B.01 for determination of fire flow). 55. Fire hydrants shall be located within 400 feet of all portions of the buildings. C.F.C. Sec. 507.5.1. The Number of fire hydrants will be determined upon distances and fire flow demand. 56. An automatic sprinkler system is required as per C.F.C. Sec. 903.2.1.2. 57. A manual fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system shall be installed in Group A occupancies where the occupant load due to the assembly occupancy is 300 or more. C.F.C. Sec 907.2.1 . 58. Changes or additions to boat docks/marina shall meet NBFD Guideline F.01 , C.F.C. Chapter 36, N.F.P.A. 303, and N.F.P.A. 14 and require a fire plan review with an "F Permit. 59. Group A occupancies main exit shall front on a least one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet in width that adjoins a street or public way. C.F.C. Sec. 1028.2 60. Interior finishes and decorative materials shall meet C.F.C. Chapter 8 and C.B.C. Sec. 803. 61. A Type I hood shall be installed at or above all commercial cooking appliances and domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes that produce grease vapors. C.F.C. Sec. 609.2. 10-02-2015 S15 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 16 of 20 62. Each required commercial kitchen exhaust hood and duct system required by Section 609 shall have a Type I hood shall be protected with an approved automatic fire- extinguishing system installed in accordance with this code. C.F.C. Sec. 904.2.1. 63. Doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel where serving a room or area containing an occupant load of 50 or more persons. C.F.C. Sec. 1008.1.2. 64. Doors serving spaces with an occupant load of 50 or more in a Group A occupancy shall not be provided with a latch or lock unless it is panic hardware or fire exit hardware. C.F.C. Sec. 1008.1.10. 65. A knox box shall be required on the building in a location approved by the fire department. Keys shall be provided for all exterior entry doors, fire protection equipment control rooms, mechanical and electrical rooms, elevator controls and equipment spaces. C.F.C. Sec. 506.1. 66. Every room or space which is used for assembly, dining, drinking, or similar purposes having an occupant load of 50 or more shall have the occupant load of the room or space posted in a conspicuous place, near the main exit or exit access doorway from the room or space. 67. Fire Lanes shall be identified as per NBFD Guideline C.02. C.F.C. Sec. 503.3. 68. Fire extinguishers shall be required for both structures (restaurant and restroom) and shall be included on the plans submitted for plan check. C.F.C. Sec. 906.1. 69. All weather access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. C.F.C. Sec. 3310.1. 70. Detailed plans of underground fire service mains shall be submitted to the Newport Beach Fire Department for approval prior to installation. The underground mains are a separate review by the fire department requiring an "F Permit and are not part of the Precise grading review. Police Department Conditions 71. The operator of the establishment shall secure and maintain an Operator License pursuant to Chapter 5.25 of the Municipal Code. 72. The Operator License required to be obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.25 of the Municipal Code, may be subject to additional and/or more restrictive conditions such as a security plan to regulate and control potential late-hour nuisances associated with the operation of the establishment. 73. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the standards of the 10-02-2015 so Planning Commission Resolution No. #### # Page 17 of 20 California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying/licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 74. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 75. Any activities outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, conducted outside of the building shall require a special event permit. 76. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records, which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. These records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Police Department on demand. 77. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter, and debris from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. Gaffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of written notice from the City. 78. There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 79. The operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours. 80. No games or contests requiring or involving the consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 81. Strict adherence to maximum occupancy limits is required. 82. The applicant/operator shall install and maintain a security camera system with a one- month recording retention and signage approved by the Police Department. Building Division Conditions 83. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- 10-02-2015 37 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 18 of 20 adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 84. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") to reduce construction-related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off-Site Impacts • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10 percent soil moisture content in the top six-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 85. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 86. Prior to issuance of gradin. permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP 10-02-2015 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###l## Page 19 of 20 shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 87. A list of "good house-keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 88. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit for new construction, the Community Development Department shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that: a. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State- required noise attenuation devices. b. During the construction phase, the Project Applicant shall ensure that construction hours, allowable work days, and the telephone number of the job superintendent are clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the appropriate party. C. When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). d. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. e. Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). Public Works Conditions 89. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised Valet Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. The revised Valet Parking Management Plan shall: a. How the plan will be flexible and adjusted based on parking demand. 10-02-2015 39 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 20 of 20 b. How the parking areas will transition from self-parking to valet parking. 90. The applicant shall provide an offer to dedicate (OTD) a minimum ten (10) foot-wide public access easement connecting the public dock to East Coast Highway. The dedication shall include a connection to the Back Bay Landing property to the north. The Public Works Director may reduce the width of the easement to eight (8) feet if the accessway reduces the number of off-street parking spaces or reduces the effectiveness of the landscape screening between the parking lot and the southern waterfront. 91. No off-street parking spaces shall be permitted to have bumper overhangs within the public access easement. 92. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing; parking arrangements for both sites during construction; anticipated haul routes and construction mitigation. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 93. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. 10-02-2015 40 Attachment No. PC 2 Project Plans 41 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �� PA2015-113 Attachment PC 2-Project Plans LEGEND LINE AND CURVE TABLE I� v.nmvrtEfxl uneercunvee Oars ruexara%n rmue N �.._. Yot PARKINGPSUMMIRY HY %eE ms,PE X R%3T VICINITY MAP - 141. GRE GUMMARY E `�wui�.vxs/ BUILDING-1-O CWE-MGE C0} EnM xcr�uxm u. mnnw u. Is PARC SUMMARY Iy., ..� Is oiFjGGogSTH,GHWgy ,PAs""w"�.�,E `I W IF FF �e� yr ,� IFq 'tip I Is IF r � A m�IF v rn.mw '°° IFI 1.Ars °� orors v PAPCEI. g \ e s Fa E @I vsrs 6 .r L n eini?n{ IF IF I i"/ rr IFIai e 251 E.COAST HIM. \ - — — V, % ^1x `x / SOLRESTAURANT � �/ J u° snrx; —��u rsasww donFT / I f ai�.I w vJ I �.j �n Hors T PARCELS 3 F y EGRAPHIC scALE wvm m. Pawxn r« 1112412015 n r " Stantec �p IRVINE COMPANY PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLAN _ w / ^ix-m In ® 39 Hrv°IO a IN RALROA MARIXq�NEWPOAT BEACH CA IC' e�mW I _" H. ile"cwie0°sxxre m since I864 ,C3 g2 n 'o PA201S113 Attachment PC 2-P.pd Plana LEGES OEMOLITONIREMOVALHOTEB w ® . _tea.- I pAErt�l(alorvl ti�� UNEE Ri ue IKK ovand ,yy vz lqn mf X uMws wtt4mX Nom.w.vwxoAuciln Na�.Xo� V IC wrr MAP r PqC/F C04,9?. 0 qY ------------- /C STH/C'(iW L ----------------`a'--------- �- ---- �r jjr-e,� €a7'�.�"'�� "� � ..r�� 1. ---------- ----------I __ _ f♦I ^fir ♦. ✓ ♦. .. ♦. ♦/ is - ©/ •"J �� Ll / PARCEL 5 \I\ _ r / \ I \ I - ✓ NWT. SO RESTAURANT SOL RESTAURANT 2l I PARCEL I _/ 201 E.COAST HM. 8 e PARCELS ORANGE CO.YpCHT3 PA4.NO 93d06 reee Exo;exeoi € BOOIC2812 PAGE 1,7 F PARCEL 4 A GWJMCSCPLE vwm 11120/2019 ry Stantec PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION PLAN IRVINE COMPANY / ^ix ml0 ®'a f,5ulrt lao BALBOA MARINA,NEWPORT BEACH CA C2 v £ �.�=.w x. svasaamm ,�xxi since 7814 C3 PA2015-113 Attachment PC 2-P,pc Plans C `�� _------- TOTAL GROSS BUILDING SF:14,252 SF — PUBLIC WAIX PUBIC WAIX _..I. _ .— 0 NET PUBLIC AREA:9,030 SF DECK DINING AREA 1,255 SF LILJ INTERIOR SEATS:377 SEATS — fl ❑ 1 P DECK DINING AREA SEATS:40 SEATS BAR/LOUNGErim f OLET CMOECK EAT N i I li III 0 — O O ---I-- -- CO-- - ^i�-------_i_- I, Q¢C��] I O CTV b __O�G _ _ ___ KITCHEN/130H _____ _SERVICE I J � - o dos � I « =; 83EBE3E3E3 3. KC.•JC'il �' 'I-C- ' C __ K 05-14-15 FLOOR PLAN BALBOA MARINA 0 WINE CQNB`M NEWPORT BEACH, CA PA2015-113 AHzonmenl PC Pr=ias:Plans TOTAL GROSS BUILDING SF 664 E' ------------- e li = i I p,, z kv 05-1415 N FLOOR PLAN Q 4 1 B A L B O A MARINA . RV NE GOMIMNY NEWPORT BEACH, CA PA2015-113 Attachment PC 2-Pmjeot Plans Plant Legend Is nu Pa T­ Ell we—Li 0 � A I 1 ®B8 R8H e ,1 U 9�0 [nim Ban d 5 � #� �gB®HB HB EB® ..•ry' 6 m avw�^'^• w 9 40 ° 0 36, 36 32n11 32. 32 32 32 40 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 6-00 32 40 36 36 �32 32 32 32. 34 3p W D7 W D7GIB 32' ' N O s 0 4040 . 36 36 32 32 32 3232 30 32 g .0.0. w J65.� v 365 365 '32 32 32 32 32 I 32 30 4 30 40 36 ME> <cil] 32 32 `I' ?� 32 l - 32 36- OOCK'A' OOCKV DOCK-CDOCK-O' DOCK'E' DOCK Re sponse to City Comments-OW2212O15 Response to City Comments-1112412015 GRAPXIO6GnLE �wm ea ouPuso ma 1011312015 ® b u r t o n san Stantec PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN a LlIa«I,e�f1 Elm IRVINE COMPANY (i^'Ffro) I9i993,Gmm9I1I1 �i�naucm e5e>s+»wl eSaJs<]ioJF SINCE 1864 BAEBOA MARINA,NEWPORT BEACH CA pry L1 �r NE 19, 2t $F1ACf lODOFLt WIDI $1:rW1115 MEUI NOOf OEMSRMY GIAIiNG GVSSYMYIG DKOUFNE SRR SIIDv%'GlAfS WALL SrSRM GiALNG JFJOFO E%I WOOD DEU[ �FO GOOF JJS. ROOF �i0 GIFDMG FO Fw6HFD WEST ELEVATION SWDf IOWERS WDN SKYIK.HfS NETM 900f OEIIESIOAV GUSWG DKOMRVF SRFt MiSONPY/fYASR9 GIKwOBDIwD � WAYS t0 0.00f ROOF �� TO FNIWD Lo-, OSFA WALLSFA WPLL •0'O" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"-1'0 _ BALBOA MARINA RESTAURANT 0[WINE COMPANY NEWPORT BEACH, CA NE 19, 2C SHADEipNER3 WDN IAF1Al ROOF SKYDGMS SDgNf.GU CIEIIESTOttG NG GIA.SSRAIIING DECORATIVE ME GIADNG RE1 m WALL SYAEAI EKf WOODDEIX MASONtt/ EIASIER'IIADS TO ROO .37V fl .3P0' SLG.GIAZRW .•. �.. — _� TO,DNINED TO SEA WALL SFA SOUTH ELEVATION DECOGTIYE STEEI mASONtt/MSTER CIFRFSTORY GIAIwG SHADE IOIIVFRS WEfH GLt33 WALLS GUDNG RENWD WING SKl11GHi5 .379 Ett wooD DECK //Fru roof ro eooErh .314' TO GVSwG� i0 E.NISNFD IYO' Wu SCALE_ 1/8"=1'-0" BALBOA MARINA RESTAURANT 0[WINE CQMPANY NEWPORT BEACH, CA JUNE 19, 2015 A.ro l lh ro.waE .x•d tA.11tlL®f100R � � LO xNLtD M1Op EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION A5P4LLI SHIM E ROOF �to.IOOfIO'Jf .. •31'.IP HORRONLLL Wlb� Sti+RC TO fHiXEO FIIXfI SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'0" BALBOA MARINA RESTAURANT NEWPORT BEACH, CA zu IT01 � # ,,1JTHWF«TAFRIAT _„ a� SOUTHEAST VIF'A BALBOA MARINA RESTAURANT .[WINE COMPANY NEWPORT BEACH, CA PA2015-113 Ab PB h.e.t PC 2-PIOpPlans LEGEND Y Q p V ggpy (02,11 H f-- T7 � ARCEL 1 P —,—i �� 1rl _ raw mmm k PARCEL 3 ° ./ i[A�fA➢�--_ --LEA" y R R R PARCELS 6 p HOOK ZB9,PACE I] —' _ rARcet a s' N RAP"6 BCALE PRELIMINARY ACCESS & UTILITY PLAN [11/24112015A N c IRVINE COMPANYStante IET • BALBOA MARINA,NEWPORT BEACH CA'°18Since 1864 � o a Attachment No. PC 3 ND2013-002 and MMRP (under separate cover) S3 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �� Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration BALBOA MARINA WEST CECIA Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Community Development Dept. Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Joint Project Applicants: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CEQA Consultant: T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 August 18, 2014 5� 1 .0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Document................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 CEQA Requirements for Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs)........... 1-1 1.3 Format and Content of this Mitigated Negative Declaration .................... 1-2 1.4 Preparation and Processing of this Mitigated Negative Declaration........ 1-3 2.0 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location.................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Background ..........................................................................................2-1 2.3 CEQA Requirements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions...........................................................................................................2-2 2.4 Existing Site and Area Characteristics ............................................................2-2 2.4.1 Site Access..............................................................................................2-2 2.4.2 Existing Site Conditions..........................................................................2-2 2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development........................................2-3 2.5 City Planning Context.......................................................................................2-3 2.5.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan.................................................2-3 2.5.2 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan ................................2-4 2.5.3 City of Newport Beach Zoning Designations.....................................2-5 2.6 Existing Environmental Characteristics ...........................................................2-5 2.6.1 Air Quality ...............................................................................................2-5 2.6.2 Topography, Geology and Soils..........................................................2-5 2.6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................2-6 2.6.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................2-6 2.6.5 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources...........2-7 2.6.6 Rare and Unique Resources.................................................................2-7 3.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Purpose and Need and Project Objectives ..................................................3-2 3.1.1 Water-Side Development Areas A and B ..........................................3-3 3.1 .2 Land-Side Development- Area C .......................................................3-4 3.2 Construction Characteristics-Water-Side Development .............................3-6 3.3 Construction Characteristics-Land-Side Development...............................3-7 3.4 Project Approval Process .................................................................................3-8 4.0 Project Information........................................................................................................4-1 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis..............................................5-1 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................5-1 5.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) ............................5-1 5.3 City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Summary........................5-2 5.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...........................................................5-14 5.4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................5-14 5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................5-37 5.4.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................5-39 5.4.4 Biological Resources ...........................................................................5-49 5.4.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................5-60 5.4.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................5-65 50 5.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................5-71 5.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................5-75 5.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................5-82 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning.......................................................................5-90 5.4.11 Mineral Resources ...............................................................................5-95 5.4.12 Noise......................................................................................................5-96 5.4.13 Population and Housing...................................................................5-109 5.4.14 Public Services....................................................................................5-1 10 5.4.15 Recreation..........................................................................................5-111 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................5-112 5.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................5-124 5.4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance...............................................5-129 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .........................................................6-1 7.0 References .....................................................................................................................7-1 8.0 Persons Contributing to IS/MND Preparation.............................................................8-1 8.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation....................8-1 57 The reports identified below are included within the Technical Appendices to this MND, and are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. These reports are attached to this MND (bound separately) and also are available for review at the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, during regular business hours. A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment B. Marine Biological Impact Assessment C. Jurisdictional Delineation Report D. Coastal Engineering Study E. Impact Assessment for Proposed Project Alternatives F. Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report G. Geofechnical Investigation H. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment I. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan J. Noise Study K. Traffic Impact Analysis L. Visual Simulations M1 . General Plan Consistency Analysis M2. Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis 52 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map....................................................................................2-8 Figure2-2 Vicinity Map........................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-3 Aerial Photograph...........................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-4 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses..............................................................2-11 Figure 2-5 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations................. ...........................2-12 Figure 2-6 Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations...............................................2-13 Figure 2-7 Existing Zoning Designations...........................................................................2-14 Figure 3-1 Marina Existing Conditions..............................................................................3-10 Figure3-2 Concept Plan...................................................................................................3-11 Figure 3-3 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 1) ...3-12 Figure 3-4 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 2) ...3-13 Figure 3-5 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion (Concept Plan Overlain on ExistingCondition) ...................................................................................................................3-14 Figure 3-6 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Site Sections.......................3-15 Figure 3-7 Concept Plan with Parking Lot Circulation and Pedestrian Access........3-16 Figure 3-8 Conceptual Architectural Rendering - Building Design.............................3-17 Figure 3-9 Conceptual Landscape Plan........................................................................3-18 Figure 3-10 Water-Side Dredging Footprint......................................................................3-19 Figure 3-11 Land-Side Demolition......................................................................................3-20 Figure 5-1 Site Photos Key Map........................................................................................5-15 Figure 5-2 Site Photos 1 through 4 ...................................................................................5-16 Figure 5-3 Site Photos 5 through 9 ...................................................................................5-17 Figure 5-4 General Plan Coastal Views Map.................................................................5-19 Figure 5-5 Photo Simulation Key Map.............................................................................5-23 Figure 5-6 Visual Simulation 1 ...........................................................................................5-24 Figure 5-7 Visual Simulation 2...........................................................................................5-25 Figure 5-8 Visual Simulation 3 ...........................................................................................5-26 Figure 5-9 Visual Simulation 4...........................................................................................5-27 Figure 5-10 Visual Simulation 5 ...........................................................................................5-28 Figure 5-11 Visual Simulation 6...........................................................................................5-29 Figure 5-12 Estimated Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels...............................................5-103 159 Figure 5-13 Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..5-1 16 Figure 5-14 Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes...5-117 00 Table 3-1 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits................................................................3-9 Table 5-1 SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status ..................................5-40 Table 5-2 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ................................................5-43 Table 5-3 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions.................................5-44 Table 5-4 Area and Operational Emissions ...................................... ..........................5-45 Table 5-5 LST Emissions-Construction ...........................................................................5-48 Table 5-6 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................5-73 Table 5-7 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards..........................5-97 Table 5-8 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards........................5-101 Table 5-9 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels....................................................5-104 Table 5-10 Significant Noise Impact Criteria.................................................................5-104 Table 5-11 Summary of Existing Noise Measurements.................................................5-105 Table 5-12 Estimated Average Construction Noise Levels..........................................5-107 Table 5-13 Project Trip Generation.................................................................................5-1 15 Table 5-14 Existing (Year 2014)+ Project Intersection Capacity.................................5-1 18 Table 5-15 Year 2017+ Project Intersection Capacity.................................................5-120 Table 5-16 Year 2017+ Project + Growth Intersection Capacity................................5-121 01 1 .0 Introduction The Balboa Marina West Project evaluated in this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is jointly proposed by the City of Newport Beach and Irvine Company. The Project proposes to add a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina. The Project site consists of 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. The site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive, and east of the Lower Newport Bay channel in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. 1.1 Purpose of this Document The Balboa Marina West Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to CEQA. The content of this MND complies with all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). CEQA is a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code §§21000- 21177 that applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. CEQA requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project's potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment. As defined by CEQA Guidelines §15367, the City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project. "Lead Agency" refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Approvals required of the City of Newport Beach to implement the proposed Project include, but are not limited to, an Approval in Concept, Harbor Development Permit, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. These actions and other approval actions required of the City, County of Orange, California Coastal Commission, other state agencies, and federal agencies to fully implement the Project are described in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description. If this MND is approved by the City of Newport Beach, Responsible and Trustee agencies with approval authorities over the Project can use this MND as the CEQA compliance document as part of their decision making processes. 1.2 CEQA Reaulrements for Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) An MND is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons why a proposed project, which is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines §15371). The CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of a M ND if the Initial Study prepared for a project identifies potentially significant effects, but: 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, 02 or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed MND and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and 2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines §I5070[b]) 1.3 Format and Content of this Mitigated Negative Declaration The following components comprise the MND in its entirety: 1) This document, including all Sections. Section 5.0 contains the completed Environmental Checklist/Initial Study and its associated analyses, which document the reasons to support the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study. 2) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which summarizes all mitigation measures imposed on the proposed Project to ensure that effects to the environment are reduced to less-than-significant levels. The basis for the MMRP is found in the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study. The MMRP also indicates the required timing for the implementation of each mitigation measure, identifies the parties responsible for implementing and/or monitoring the mitigation measures, and identifies the level of significance following the incorporation of mitigation. In addition, Project Design Features (PDFs) have been incorporated where appropriate to reduce potential environmental effects through the use of development components that ensure impacts are minimized. 3) Fourteen technical reports that evaluate the effects of the proposed Project, which are attached as Technical Appendices A through M2. These technical reports also are on file and available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division (100 Civic Center Drive; Newport Beach, California 92660) and are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. A. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment, prepared by KPC EHS Consultants, and dated June 2014. B. Marine Biological Impact Assessment for the Balboa Marina West Project, prepared by Coastal Resources Management, Inc., and dated December 12, 2013. C. Jurisdictional Delineation Report Balboa Marina West Expansion, prepared by Anchor QEA, LP, and dated Revised December 2013. D. Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Coastal Engineering Study, prepared by Everest International Consultants, Inc., and dated July 2013. 63 E. Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Impact Analysis for Proposed Alternatives, prepared by Everest International Consultants, Inc., and dated March 2013. F. Balboa Marina West Expansion Project Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report, prepared by New Fields, and dated February 7, 2014. G. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Restaurant Balboa Marina Newport Beach, California, prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc., and dated April 8, 2014. H. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., and dated April 30, 2014 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, prepared by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., and dated May 16, 2014. I. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Balboa Marina West Redevelopment Project, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., and dated April 23, 2014. J. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Balboa Marina West in the City of Newport Beach, CA, prepared by Wieland Acoustics, and dated July, 17 2014. K. Balboa Marina West Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., and dated April 17, 2014. L. Visual Simulations, prepared by BCV, and dated June 23, 2014. M1 . General Plan Consistency Analysis for the Balboa Marina West Project, Prepared by T&B Planning, Inc. and dated July 30, 2014. M2. Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis for the Balboa Marina West Project, Prepared by T&B Planning, Inc. and dated July 30, 2014. 1 .4 Preparation and Processing of this Mitigated Negative Declaration The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division directed and supervised the preparation of this MND. Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this MND reflect the sole independent judgment of the City of Newport Beach. This MND and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND will be distributed to the following entities for a 30-day public review period: 1) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of Newport Beach; 2) direct mailing to the owners of property contiguous to the Project site and property owners within a 300-foot radius as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; 3) responsible 04 and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); 4) the County of Orange Clerk; and 5) the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, for review by State agencies. The NOI identifies the location(s) where the MND and its associated MMRP and Technical Appendices are available for public review. In addition, notice of the public review period also will occur via posting of a notice on- and off-site (at City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive) in the area where the Project is to be located and publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The NOI also establishes a 30- day public review period during which comments on the adequacy of the MND document may be provided to the City of Newport Beach Planning Division. Following the 30-day public review period, the City of Newport Beach will review any comment letters received and determine whether any substantive comments were provided that may warrant revisions to the MND document. If substantial revisions are not necessary (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(b)), then the MND will be finalized and forwarded to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. A public hearing(s) will be held before the City's Planning Commission to consider the proposed Project and the adequacy of this MND. Public comments will be heard and considered at the hearing(s). If the MND is approved, the Planning Commission will adopt findings relative to the Project's environmental effects as disclosed in the MND and a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the County of Orange Clerk. 615 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.1 Prolect Location Balboa Marina is located in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay in the City of Newport Beach, California. The entire Newport Bay is approximately 1,600 acres in size. Lower Newport Bay is approximately 800 acres in size with about 750 acres of open water. It serves as a small boat harbor containing concrete bulkheads and floating docks. As such, Newport Harbor is one of the largest small boat harbors on the United States' Pacific coastline. Properties surrounding Lower Newport Bay are used for a variety of purposes including but not limited to tourism, residential, commercial, marina, and recreation. As shown on Figure 2-1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map, the Project site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive. Specifically, the Project site comprises 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. The Project site encompasses Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 050-451-01, 050-451-02, 050- 451-03, 050-451-10, 050-451-55, 050-451-59, 050-451-060, 440-132-39, and 440-132-51 . 2.2 Project Background Prior to approximatelyl947 the land-side portion of Project site was an undeveloped lot. In approximately 1947, the property began to be used as a marina. Around 1953, the current on-site commercial building was constructed and the property and adjacent water-side area began functioning as the Balboa Marina. Part of the water-side portion of the site was occupied for approximately 40 years by a floating vessel that housed the Ruben E. Lee Riverboat restaurant and later by the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, but the vessel was dismantled and removed from the site in 2008. Only the cement bulkhead that served the vessel remains under existing conditions. In 2005, Irvine Company filed a Planning Application with the City of Newport Beach proposing the reconstruction of the aging marina, which was n earing the end of its useful life. During the City Harbor Commission review of the project, a request was made of Irvine Company to set aside four (4) boat slips for use by the general public in the private marina. A MND was approved for the Balboa Marina Dock Replacement project by the City of Newport Beach on February 14, 2007 (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2007011017). The Project as approved consisted of replacing the then-existing 132 slip, 27,550 SF dock with a 20,483 SF dock to accommodate 105 boat slips available to vessel sizes from 22 to 58 feet in length. An Addendum to the Balboa Marina Dock Replacement MND (SCH 200701 1 01 7) was prepared in December 2008 to evaluate the installation of a seawall earth anchor system to improve the stability of the existing seawall. In 2008, the California Coastal Commission issued a Coastal Development Permit allowing for the reconstruction of the marina, which was completed in 2009. Under existing conditions, the Balboa Marina provides 105 slips for boats ranging in length from 22 to 58 feet, including four (4) transient slips available to general public. 00 Since 2009, Irvine Company has discovered that management of the marina is challenging in terms of providing security for the private lessees while still providing open access to the four (4) public slips. In 2011 the City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission, Harbor Resources Department, and Irvine Company initiated discussions about the potential for relocating the public slips out of the private marina to a new public transient dock. A City Council Study session took place on March 27, 2012, in which the joint effort of the City and Irvine Company was discussed and supported for additional analysis. 2.3 CEQA Reaulrements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as "...the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced...... (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]) In the case of the proposed Project, the Initial Study determined that an MND is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance document, which does not require a Notice of Preparation (NOP). Thus, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is the approximate date that the Project's environmental analysis commenced. The City of Newport Beach deemed the proposed Project's application complete and commenced environmental review of the Project in December 2013. Accordingly, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is defined as the physical environmental conditions on the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site as they existed in December 2013. Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, provides a summary of the existing physical environmental conditions of the Project site and surrounding areas as t hey existed in December 2013. 2.4 Existing Site and Area Characteristics 2.4.1 Site Access Direct roadway access to the existing Balboa Marina parking lot is via East Coast Highway. Secondary roadway access is provided via Bayside Drive. East Coast Highway provides access to State Route 55 (SR-55), located approximately 1.6 miles west of the Project site. Jamboree Road is located approximately 0.75 miles east of the Project site and provides access to Interstate 405 (1-405), which is located approximately 5.9 miles to the north of the Project site. Primary access from the Pacific Ocean from the west is via the channel of Lower Newport Bay and the private boat dock area and four (4) transient public boat slips located in the existing Balboa Marina. 2.4.2 Existing Site Conditions Under existing conditions, the land-side portion of the Project site comprises 3.5 acres. The land-side development area is occupied by a 1,200 SF building, located at 201 East Coast Highway, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The 07 remainder of the ground surface is comprised of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot. The existing 313 parking stalls currently serve the marina and the adjacent Sol Restaurant. The parking lot is enclosed by ornamental vegetation with access to the private boat slips restricted by an approximately three (3)-foot high aluminum gate. Light poles and trees in planters are interspersed throughout the parking lot. Two (2) approximately three (3)-foot high cement monuments containing the words "Balboa Marina" flank each side of the driveway entrance to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway. Two palm trees surrounded by ground vegetation exist behind the entrance monument on one side of the entrance driveway. The paved parking lot has a seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west side. The existing seawall consists of a series of concrete panels with two sets of tie-back anchors (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3). The water-side portion of the Project site comprises 0.87 acres of water surface and submerged land. The submerged lands are designated State Tidelands administered and under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The water-side development area currently supports a private dock area with 107 boat slips, including four (4) public transient boat slips. Rock riprap extends several meters seaward into the low intertidal/shallow subtidal. Beyond the riprap, the Lower Newport Bay floor consists of silts, sands, and shell debris (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 8). 2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development The Project site is located along the eastern side of Newport Harbor in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay. As shown on Figure 2-4, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses, the Project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking; on the south by water surface and Linda Isle, a m an-made island consisting of residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter; on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots; and on the west by the channel of Lower Newport Bay. 2.5 City Planning Context 2.5.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan As shown on Figure 2-5, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal-related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the Bay on sites located on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006). Properties north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are also designated by the General Plan as Recreational and Marine Commercial, but a greater floor area ratio is allowed than permitted on the Project site (CM 0.5 FAR). Properties bordering the 02 channel and located east of the Project site have the same General Plan land use designation as the Project site, which is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR). East of Bayside Drive, properties are designated by the General Plan as General Commercial (CG 0.3 FAR). Properties located across the water on Linda Isle are designated by the General Plan as Single Unit Residential Detached (RS-D). 2.5.2 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) declares it a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone and prohibits development 1,000 feet inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from the state coastal commission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established the California Coastal Commission and identified coastal resource planning and management policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and development. Implementation of California Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) by the local government that is reviewed and certified (approved) by the Coastal Commission. The City of Newport Beach does not have a certified LCP, and therefore, does not have the jurisdiction to issue Coastal Development Permits (CDP). The City does, however, have a C oastal Land Use Plan that has been certified by the California Coastal Commission. Because the City does not have permit jurisdiction, the City reviews pending development projects for consistency with the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning regulations before a CDP application can be filed with the California Coastal Commission. As shown on Figure 2-6, Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations, the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Project site as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM-A, 0.00-0.30 FAR). The CM category is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor- serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on the waterfront and commercial and industrial building sites on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2009). Properties located north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are also designated by Coastal Land Use Plan as Recreational and Marine Commercial but development is allowed at a higher floor area ratio than allowed on the Project site (CM-B, 0.00-0.50 FAR). Properties bordering the channel and located east of the Project site have the some Coastal Land Use Plan designation as the Project site, which is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM-A 0.00-0.30 FAR). East of Bayside Drive, properties are designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan as General Commercial (CG- A, 0.00-0.30 FAR). Properties located across the water on Linda Isle are designated Single Unit Residential Detached 6.0-9.9 DU/AC (RSD-B). 69 2.5.3 City of Newport Beach Zoning Designations As shown on Figure 2-7, Existing Zoning Designations, the Project site is zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). The CM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for commercial development on or near the waterfront that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal- related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on sites located on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2014). Properties north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are zoned by the Newport Beach Municipal Code as P lanned Community (PC-9). Properties bordering the channel and located east of the Project site have the some zoning designation as the Project site, which is Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). East of Bayside Drive, properties are zoned Commercial General (CG 0.3 FAR). Properties located across the water on Linda Isle are zoned Single-Unit Residential (R-1). 2.6 Existina Environmental Characteristics 2.6.1 Air Quality The City of Newport Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB, or "Basin"), which is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The climate of Southern California found in the Newport Beach area of the SCAB is described as a Mediterranean-type climate characterized by long warm summers and moderate winters with moderate precipitation and a maritime influence giving a marine layer and a temperature inversion layer. The coastal areas of the SCAB, including the Project site, have better air quality than inland portions of the Basin. Regardless, the SCAQMD reports a se vere air pollution problem in the SCAB as a consequence of the combination of emissions and meteorological conditions which are adverse to the dispersion of those emissions. In the SCAB, high concentrations of ozone are n ormally recorded during the spring and summer months, while high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are generally recorded in late fall and winter. High particulate matter concentrations can occur throughout the year, but occur most frequently in the fall and winter. 2.6.2 Topography, Geology and Soils Under existing conditions, the land-side portion of the Project site consists of approximately 85% impervious conditions containing a 1,200 SF building and a paved parking lot with a concrete seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west side. An approximately 3- to 4- foot change in elevation separates the beach from the parking lot (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 3). The parking lot slopes upward toward East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. The subsurface soil profile on the land-side portion of the Project site consists of mostly fine grain to medium sands with variable silt content, along with some minor amounts of compressible organic clay with peat and elastic silt. These sands are typically medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater lengths. (Geotechnical Professionals, jO Inc, 2014, p. 3) In the water-side portion of the Project site, soils on the water bottom consist of sand. Southern California is a seismically active area an d properties in the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, so there is no potential for ground rupture at the site. Faults zones in the regional vicinity (as shown on General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-1, Regional Faults (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.5-1)) with the potential to cause moderate ground shaking in the City of Newport Beach include the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, the San Joaquin fault zone, and the Elysian fault zone. 2.6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality The Project site is located in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay, which is approximately 800 acres in size with about 750 acres of open water. It serves as a small boat harbor containing concrete bulkheads and floating docks. The 13.2 square mile Newport Bay Watershed drains into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel and the San Diego Creek that discharges into Upper Newport Bay. Both Upper Newport Bay and Lower Newport Bay are linked as an integrated estuary ecosystem that begins in the mud flats and tidal marshes of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, continues into the eelgrass beds of the Lower Newport Bay, and finally reaches the coastal marine intertidal and subtidal habitats of the Newport Coast (Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach, 2010, p. 4). The ocean inlet for Newport Bay is defined by two jetties that enable tidal exchange between the ocean and the Bay. Tidal currents throughout the Bay and at the Project site vary with the rise and fall of the water level. Under existing conditions, storm water runoff from the land-side portion of the Project site generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water-side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, p. 8). The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 ("Water Quality") et. seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as t he Clean Water Act (CWA)) require that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA. Lower Newport Bay is listed as impaired by several water quality pollutants, including chlordane, copper, DDT, indicator bacteria, nutrients, PCBs, pesticides, and sediment toxicity. 2.6.4 Biological Resources On the land-side portion of the Project site, the surface of the existing parking lot is largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of ornamental landscaping occurring within and bordering the existing parking lot. The beach is devoid of vegetation with the 72 exception of the transitional slope between the parking lot and the beach that is dominated with non-native vegetation. Marine birds, including but not limited to California brown pelican and California least tern, may rest on the land-side portion of the Project site and may rest and forage on the water-side portion of the Project site. Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay are considered waters of the state and U.S. These waters contain some areas of sensitive habitat, such as eelgrass, that are afforded additional protection by state and federal agencies to conserve and protect sensitive biological resources. TTwo small eelgrass beds were mapped within the Project area totaling 515 SF. Of this total, 379.3 SF (73.7%) is located at the southern edge of the sandy beach and 135.7 SF (26.3%) is located south of this location off of the southerly tip of the existing parking lot (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 9). The water-side portion of the Project site also is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coastal pelagic fish and groundfish habitat. The Magunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act defined EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. The only managed species likely to be present in Newport Bay, however, is the northern anchovy. Although several other coastal pelagic and groundfish FMP species are known from the Project area, data indicate that their presence at the Project site is likely sporadic and their numbers in the Project region would be extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 18). The water-side portion of the Project site provides habitat for various other fish and marine reptiles, including California halibut, green turtle, and hawskbill. Marine mammals also use Lower Newport Bay and periodically enter the water-side portion of the Project site, including sea lions and bottlenose dolphin. Sea lions are not known to beach on the Balboa Marina gangways or land-side portion of the Project site. 2.6.5 Historical,Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources According to General Plan EIR Figure 4.4-1, the Project site is not identified as containing any historical resources (Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.4-1). None of the Project site's features are included on the National Register of Historic Places or on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor are they eligible for listing. Due to the developed nature of the Project site as marina, the Project site is unlikely to contain subsurface archaeological resources. The Project site also is not located within a portion of the City that is identified as having the potential to contain fossil-bearing soils or rock formations (Newport Beach, 2006b, p. 4.4-17; PSI, Inc., 2012a). 2.6.6 Rare and Unique Resources As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(c), "Special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project." Based on the Project site's existing condition and developed nature, the proposed Project site does not contain any resources that are rare or unique to the region; however, special emphasis is placed on wetland and marine resources located on the water-side portion of the Project site. 72 so ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting i -- G Ga er Grove �-I ugfin on ills 4 1 ST S1 JP I L L TJ stminst l S to Ana — \ lD I E Grin ; t � � fF unt e 9 . untingt n Beach �� J.Il �Wajyne,41 n b 4 \ /�j'Co to Mesa € 4 f L--, 1 rvi ie •V �nomns �'_'' V J Nort Be ch P V\ • �" n Joaquin �'i 'lls IGS ANGE E'S N ort Coast comm '1 •'� ORMGGE CW IM - PACIFIC OCEAN \; j KEY MAP L Laguna, Source(s):ESRI,CASIL,Tiger Files IUSCBI Figure 2-1 HE REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-8 73 so ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting I � / . . o PACIFIC•COAST--HWY•W _ - - BAYSIDf NFP /-Z'�l0 f J BEACON BAY o fS R- HIRE` — TA _. xnt a,eaon �m Wm� h PACIFIC KEY MAP "`°°" OCEAN Source(s):ESRI,City of Newport Beach Figure 2-2 HE VICINTY MAP Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-9 74 Q U p 11fiT \ � r y,l h N 'I t11b M nit ai ! 41f- It i it i Qp . I Yl . V r \ 4ff. ! 4 �Of � 1,3 Noi SC.nLE , . . • . . es ,o a J Pearson's Port Seafood Market Parking Lot � Kayak Rental Center - J RV/Boat Storage multi'Unit Residential Pump Station - —- Parking Lot SOL Restaurant / Orange Coast�Yachts �� �' • Balboa Marina,4111111111111111111 e- y p� 3 Thirty 3 Restaurant 'f -Black Starr-fro T ` Offic B,uidling \ :. 4111 0 s . I r,oi SC.nLE :. *00 . • - -0010 0 - .. -. •..- ME ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting OS - LEGEND Residential xelenbpmopae Q as-o sinal.umi a..ld.ml.l o..0.d -RM-Mulliplellnii fteaiLenllal 0`S C...pm.l OlaMcte and OOMdars -CGGene,al Comrneeelal -CM-Rea e.1-1 eaa Mame Commexlal Public,Send-Public and Institutional ® OSOpenSpace PR -RR-Ga.ane Ree-1- 1.-11a..n. enaaionTs-Tlealanea ane suemeyad Lana tea RM 11 ,��aP yOtiyYslO�N LIBERTI' C-M °P oa WEST RD bP CM 100. NGtpd comet�.w �P-N OOASTHWYE (yMO�NAUf `RM CM C•M(0.3 FAR,) CG FAR) VP (0.3 FARO 9j i O,R C•G LINDA ISLE � e03� IrQS1 �NPpR� - �� PR WD RM 14 TS RS- RS-13 [/NQa/SIF RS-D RS-13 FS RS_D CL Source(s):City of Newport Beach Figure 2-5 HE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-12 77 ME ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting OS. LEGEND Single mit Residential Detached-RSD RSDS(o Ob,9 DU/AC) O[r O RSDA(6B-9.9DU/AC) J Multiple Unit Residential-RM -RM-C(1D0.1B 9 D WAC) General Commercial-CG -CG A(0 bD.M FAR) Recreation and Merino Commecial-CM pR -CM A(D.DO3 FAR) -CM-B(00.05 FAR) Open Space-OS O OR Parks and Recreation-PR -PR Tidelands and Submerged"nos-TS o TS (� P QC' nP�� LIBERN IDS QST RD Ryv �l°R RM-C 5r HWYw pOA j COASIHWYE ' THA pRM-C C-M-A CG-A ACKMOA oma, RSD-B LINDA ISLE ® 'OS, ' �O7 - �HAOR PR RS=D RM TS LINDA ISLE RS -B I/,/��1'; RSD=S RSD-B L�NOgjS(E RSD-A as gg� Y� Source(s):City of Newport Beach Figure 2-6 HE EXISTING COASTAL LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-13 72 ME ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting LEGEND Resiaanmi Zoning Di.mct. O R., =RM Camme tial Zoning Districts -CG-Cornme,nel General -CM-Commemul Recreational and Marne OSSpecial Purpose Zoning Districts ®as-open seas. -PRPaMa anb Recreafion PF-Publo FaclWee -PI-Ptivandidet1terare PCPlannedCommunity 5 � IW PC - MHP OR Aq wEsr2u ,P �aR PMHP PC-94! �o COAST HWY IN �¢, e\ds COAST HWYE C-M (U.3 FARt) ms's CG P R-1 LINDA ISLE ® s'OS PRI °p RM v 0 TS R-1 to R`l R=1 Source(s):City of Newport Beach Figure 2-7 HE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-14 79 3.0 Project Description This section provides all of the information required by CEQA Guidelines §15124, including: a description of the Project's precise location and boundaries; a statement of the Project's objectives; a description of the Project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; a list of government agencies that are expected to be involved in the Project's decision-making processes and a list of the permits and approvals that are required to implement the Project; and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements. The Project evaluated in this MND is jointly proposed by the City of Newport Beach and Irvine Company and is referred to as "Balboa Marina West." The Project site is located south of East Coast Highway, between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The Project site is bounded on the west by the channel of Newport Bay and on the north by East Coast Highway and outside RV and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking. On the south is water surface and Linda Isle, a man-made island containing residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter. To the east is Bayside Drive, commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots. As shown in Figure 3-1, Marina Existing Conditions, the Project site consists of 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. As previously described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, the water-side area supports floating docks of the existing Balboa Marina. The land-side area contains a paved parking lot and one, one-story building that houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The proposed Project evaluated herein includes all components of the Project, including planning, construction, and operation, in addition to any and all discretionary and administrative approvals that may be required of the City of Newport Beach and other governmental approval authorities and agencies to fully implement the proposed Project. The Project proposes to reconfigure the arrangement of uses on the Project site to establish a new public boat dock in an area of Newport Harbor that currently lacks a public dock, and to improve the private Balboa Marina including its water-side and land-side areas. The new public dock would include a gangway and approximately 12 public boat slips including eight (8) new boat slips and four (4) transient boat slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips accommodating a range of vessel sizes and a new gangway are proposed to be added. In the land-side area of the marina, the Project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 SF building located at 201 East Coast Highway. In their place, a reconfigured parking lot and a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building with tuck-under parking would be constructed. As shown on Figure 3-2, Concept Plan, the proposed public boat dock area is identified as Area A, the proposed private Balboa Marina boat dock improvement area is 20 identified as Area B, and the proposed reconfigured parking lot and marine commercial building area is identified as Area C. Area A and Area B are referred to in this MND as the "water-side development." The water-side development would occupy approximately 0.87 acres of water surface. Area C is referred to as t he "land-side development" and comprises 3.5 acres. Figure 3-3, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 1), and Figure 3-4, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 2), show the water-side and land-side development areas in more detail. 3.1 Purpose and Need and Prolect Oblectives The primary purpose and benefit of the Project is the development of a new public boat dock in an area of Newport Harbor that is more easily accessible to the public than the four (4) transient public boat slips currently available in the private Balboa Marina. The following is a list of specific objectives sought by the proposed Project. A. To establish a new public transient boat dock in Lower Newport Bay to provide a new point of vertical public access. B. To relocate four (4) existing transient public boat slips out of the private Balboa Marina to an area of Lower Newport Bay that is more easily accessible to transient public boaters. C. To enhance resident and visitor boater's ability to access the land from the water. D. To allow transient public boaters to easily navigate from a new public dock in Lower Newport Bay to marine commercial uses in and around the Balboa Marina. E. To assist in meeting the need for a variety of boat slip sizes in Newport Harbor by adding a new public dock and additional boats slips at the Balboa Marina that accommodate a range of vessel sizes, including slips for vessels 20-feet in length and under. F. To provide additional private boat slips and a new gangway in the Balboa Marina that would enable boaters to dock and access the land- side development areas. G. To provide a more efficient circulation and vehicle parking pattern in the Balboa Marina parking lot. H. To provide a new marine commercial building that can house a restaurant, yacht brokerage, and public restrooms that are accessible from both a vehicular parking lot and boat tie-ups. 21 3.1.1 Water-Side Development Areas A and B Water-Side Development Area A, known as the public transient dock area, would provide 12 public boat slips, including eight (8) new boat slips and four (4) slips relocated from the private Balboa Marina. The public boat slips would be transient in nature, meaning that there would be no overnight tie ups allowed.. There would be no boat launches from this area. It is anticipated that boaters would access the public dock from the water-side and use the slips to tie up and access the land-side restaurants and commercial uses. Under existing conditions, there are no public docks in this area of Lower Newport Bay. Therefore, relocating the four (4) public boat slips that currently exist in the private Balboa Marina and adding eight (8) new public boat slips would enhance the public's ability to access the land from the water. In an effort to serve a wide range of public boaters, the 12 public boat slips would accommodate a variety of vessel sizes, including boats 20-feet in length and under. Water-Side Development Area B, known as the private dock expansion area, would add 24 private boat slips that would be accessible from the existing private Balboa Marina and a new private gangway. The marina expansion would include ten (10) new slips for boats 20-feet in length and fourteen (14) new slips for boats 35-feet and longer. Vessel pump-out accommodation would be provided for the new private boat slips similar to the system constructed at the existing private Balboa Marina. Due to the transient nature of the slips at the public docks, no pump out facility is proposed for the public slips. Dock and gangway lighting would be provided as currently exists at the private Balboa Marina. Lighting would be located under the handrails to allow for safe nighttime pedestrian movement at the marina. The maintenance of the private dock would be the responsibility of Irvine Company. The maintenance of the public dock and boat slips would be the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the total thirty-six (36) new boat slips that are proposed in Development Area A and Development Area B. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 square feet (SF). Of this, 2,258 SF would be public docks and 6,787 SF would be private docks (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). Thirty-seven (37) piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor. These include eleven (11) 20-inch diameter piles and twenty-six (26) 16-inch diameter piles. The combined bottom surface area for all piles is 54.4 SF. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21 ) (CAA Planning, 2014) In addition, eight (8) 16-inch diameter platform piles would be installed at elevations higher than the mean tide line. Water-Side Development Area A and Development Area B would require dredging of approximately 9,900 cubic yards (CY) of sediment, as well as the removal of 1,300 CY of upland soils (material from above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) to accommodate the new boat slips (NewFields, 2014, p. 1). In order to accommodate the proposed number of boat slips, a riprap embankment would be constructed approximately 15-feet landward of the existing riprap embankment, along the western edge of the Project site. The relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The reconstruction of the riprap embankment inland 22 has the direct project benefit of creating a 6,772 SF increase in waters of the United States (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 11). A new cap wall would be installed at the top of the riprap slope. 3.1.2 Land-Side Development-Area C Development Area C, referred to in this MND as the "land-side" development area, includes approximately 3.5 acres of the existing parking lot located immediately north of the existing Balboa Marina docks (refer to Figure 3-2). To implement proposed land- side improvements, the existing marina parking lot and an existing 1,200 SF structure (201 East Coast Highway) containing a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms would be demolished. The parking lot would be re-established in a modified configuration containing drive aisles, parking spaces, landscaping, and pole-mounted lighting. A new proposed marine commercial building would be developed in the southwestern portion of Development Area C containing up to 19,400 SF of building space with tuck under parking. The building is anticipated to house a restaurant with outdoor patio, marina restrooms, and an office to accommodate the yacht brokerage business displaced from the existing building that would be demolished. Because the design of the new commercial building is conceptual in nature at this time, specifics regarding its architectural characteristics are not yet available. The building would be required to comply with the non-residential shoreline height limit, so the building height with a flat roof may be constructed to a maximum 35 feet, or 40 feet with a sloped roof, with approval of a future Site Development Review application by the City of Newport Beach.. As shown on Figure 3-4, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 2), the marine commercial structure would be supported on approximately 40-foot deep piles. The tuck under parking would occur at approximately nine (9) feet above mean sea level (AMSC), which is the approximate elevation of the existing parking lot closest to the edge of Lower Newport Bay. The finish floor of the commercial structure, above the tuck-under parking, would occur at approximately 20.9 feet AMSL, which is the approximate elevation of the existing Project site closest to East Coast Highway. As shown on Figure 3-6, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Site Sections, the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide internal circulation and parking to accommodate the proposed land-side development. The parking lot near the Bayside Drive entry would be modified in order to reduce turning movements, and the overall layout of the parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. A pedestrian walkway through the parking lot would provide access from the public dock to the land-side development. New landscaped areas and plant materials would be added throughout the parking lot. The maintenance of the land-side improvements would be the responsibility of Irvine Company. A. Parking Lot Characteristics As depicted in Figure 3-7, Concept Plan with Parking Lot Circulation and Pedestrian Access, the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide internal circulation and parking to accommodate the proposed land-side development. 83 The existing large surface parking lot was used formerly to serve the Reuben E. Lee floating restaurant that was located in the water area adjacent to the west end of the parking lot and that is no longer present. Currently, the parking lot provides 313 parking stalls and serves the Balboa Marina and the Sol Restaurant. Parking lot lighting is proposed to be upgraded to energy-efficient fixtures. Fixtures would be placed to reduce "spill over" lighting to surrounding properties. The proposed fixtures are a combination of decorative and utilitarian poles and are required to be spaced to comply with City of Newport Beach minimum light level requirements and to meet standard safety requirements. Landscape areas in the parking lot would be reconfigured to conform to the revised parking lot layout. There would be a resulting net increase in the amount of landscape area on the property. Pedestrian access would be provided via a connection from the sidewalk on East Coast Highway to the internal pedestrian walkways within the Project. In addition, a long handicap access ramp is proposed to provide a connection from the curved vehicular drop off at the proposed, new marine commercial building to provide access to the public dock area. Under existing conditions, storm water runoff from the parking lot generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain located along the water-side perimeter of the Project site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New area drains are proposed to be constructed to direct low-flow and first-flush runoff to mechanical water quality bio-treatment systems prior to discharging runoff water through the existing bulkhead outlets. B. Commercial Building Characteristics As shown on Figure 3-8, Conceptual Architectural Rendering - Building Design, the marine commercial building is proposed in concept as a light-colored two-story structure with pitched roof and tuck under parking. Maximum building height would be 40 feet from finish grade. The parking floor would be at-grade and its northern wall would serve as a retaining wall. Large non-reflective windows and an outdoor patio would face the water above the parking level. The structure would contain up to 19,400 SF of building space to accommodate a restaurant use with outdoor patio and an office for the yacht brokerage business that would be displaced from the on-site building that is proposed for demolition. Based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the building is expected to generate a utility demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of water, 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity, and 2,500 kwhd of energy (Stantec, 2014). Approval of the specific building design would be subject to subsequent approval of a Site Development Review by the City of Newport Beach. Approval of a restaurant use for the building would be subject to subsequent approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City of Newport Beach. 24 C. Conceptual Landscape Plan The proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the land-side portion of the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As shown on Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping pockets would be installed in the reconfigured parking lot. Six (6) Canary Island Date Palms would be planted near the entrance driveway, King Palms would be planted along the primary parking lot drive aisle, two Senegal Date Palms would be planted at the entrance to the new commercial building, and Coral trees would be planted in other planting pockets. Each planting pocket would also include a variety of shrubs. The landscaping material is proposed to include non-invasive and drought tolerant species. 3.2 Construction Characteristics-Water-Side Development To implement the proposed water-side development, site preparation would include dredging of sediment and grading of upland soils, transport of the materials to a disposal location, installation of concrete piles, and then installation of the floats, docks, and gangways. It is estimated that between eight (8) and 15 construction workers would be working on the water-side component of the Project on any given day during various phases of construction activity. Implementation of the proposed improvements in Development Area A and Development Area B would require dredging of approximately 9,900 CY of sediment, as well as the removal of 1,300 CY of upland soils (material from above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (NewFields, 2014, p. 1). Refer to Figure 3-10, Water-Side Dredging Footprint. Upland soils would be disposed as construction fill on-site. Dredged sediment would be transported by barge for ocean disposal at site LA-3, which is a U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved location for the disposal of ocean- dredged material off the coast of Newport Beach. The U.S. EPA has the authority to designate ocean dredge material disposal sites under Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (33USC 1401 et seq.). LA-3 was approved as a permanent disposal site by the U.S. EPA in 2005, in accordance with Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 175, dated September 12, 2005. LA-3 is approved to accept a maximum annual dredged material disposal quantity of 2,500,000 cubic yards of dredged material originating from the Los Angeles and Orange County region. The circular boundary of the permanently designated LA-3 site is centered at 33°31'00" N and 117153'30" W and has a 305-meter (1,000-foot) radius at the water surface. The ocean depth at the center of the site is approximately 1,600 feet. Ocean material from the Project site would be dredged using clam-shell dredging techniques. Dredging of ocean material is anticipated to be conducted 5 days a week for approximately 4 weeks, which would include mobilization and demobilization. All dredge material would be transported via barge pushed by a tugboat to LA-3. It is anticipated that 5 to 8 barge trip(s) per week (for approximately 4 weeks) would be required depending on the size of the barge. Silt curtains would be deployed around the dredge site and barge to confine suspended sediment particles from drifting 215 beyond the job site when bottom sediments are disturbed. Dredging would take place between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm. During the dredging phase, ocean dredging equipment would be placed within the Project site when internal dredging efforts are occurring and just outside the pierhead line when dredging is occurring along the channel/pierhead line interface. With the concurrence of the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department and U.S. Coast Guard, the ocean dredging equipment could be temporarily staged in the middle of the adjacent Newport Harbor channel, with appropriate illumination and security lighting to warn potential boaters of its location after working hours. The proposed public and private docks would be supported by concrete piles that are set in place using high pressure water jetting and a pile driver. The contractor would use high pressure water jets to place the piles within approximately five (5) feet of tip elevations, and then use a diesel hammer to drive the piles down to tip elevation. Tip elevation is also known as the "toe," "base," "bottom," or "lower end" of the pile. Use of water jetting for the initial phase of each pile placement would reduce noise and vibration when compared with the exclusive use of a diesel hammer. 3.3 Construction Characteristics-Land-Side Development In order to construct the land-side portion of the Project, the existing 1,200 SF one-story building located at 201 East Coast Highway, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms, would be demolished. Additionally, portions of the existing parking lot would be demolished to prepare the site for redevelopment. Refer to Figure 3-11, Land-Side Demolition. Earthwork associated with the land-side development would be comprised of 4,325 CY of cut and 5,688 CY of fill requiring 1,364 CY of import. Analysis throughout this MND assumes a haul distance of one-mile as the source for imported material. After the site is prepared, primary construction activities would include utility line installation, building construction, paving, light pole installation, surface coatings, and landscaping. Demolition activities are expected to last approximately 30 days. Construction activities are expected to last approximately 14 months. Equipment would be staged on the job site behind screened fencing when not in use. Demolition activity is anticipated to result in 14,700 CY of demolition material composed of asphalt, landscape material, soil, and deconstructed building material. Demolition material would be deposited into a landfill and asphalt would be recycled offsite at an approved recycling facility. Demolition material would be removed from the site during City approved hours via dump trucks and transported via an approved haul route to the nearest landfill accepting demolition material. The equipment that would be used for the land-side development includes dozers, skip loaders, excavators, end dumps, motor graders and scrapers as well as a drill rig to install the auger piles that are required for the construction of the marine commercial building. Approximately 235 piles would be required to support the marine commercial building, but unlike the water-side piles, the land-side piles would be auger cast pressure grouted, which produces less noise and vibration than the installation process 20 for the water-side piles. It is estimated that between 15 and 50 construction workers would be working on the land-side component of the Project on any given day during various phases of construction activity. No full or partial temporary lane closures would occur along East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive during Project construction. The driveway to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway would remain functional and accessible during a majority of the construction process. When the driveway connecting to East Coast Highway is temporarily closed, vehicles would access the parking lot from the driveway connection at Bayside Drive near the Sol and 3Thirty3 restaurants. At all times during the land-side construction process, parking demands for the Balboa Marina and adjacent restaurants would be met on-site. No temporary off-site parking is proposed nor anticipated to be necessary (CAA Planning, 2014). 3.4 Project Approval Process This section describes the discretionary and ministerial approvals needed to implement the proposed Project. The water-side components of the proposed Project will be reviewed by the Harbor Commission and the MND and the land-side components of the proposed Project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Harbor Commission will review the Project and make a recommendation to the Manager of Harbor Resources regarding the issuance of an Approval in Concept (AIC) for the water-side components. The Planning Commission will review the MND for compliance with CEQA and approve the MND. Following approval of the MND, the Planning Commission will review a Site Development Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and/or any other discretionary permit required for the land-side marine commercial uses as specified by the Marine Commercial zoning designation. Following completion of the Harbor Commission and Planning Commission reviews, the City will issue an AIC, and a joint City/Irvine Company application will be filed with the California Coastal Commission requesting issuance of a C oastal Development Permit (CDP). The CDP application will include both the water-side and land-side Project components. Prior to the issuance of any ministerial permit such as a grading permit or building permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department requires evidence that all discretionary permits or clearances have been obtained from the California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, National Marine Fisheries, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and any other agency having approval authority. A list of the primary discretionary and ministerial permits under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach and state and federal agencies are listed below in Table 3-1, Matrix or Project Approvals/Permits. This MND was prepared based on the AIC application, but is intended to cover all permits and approval actions required for implementation of the Project, including but not limited to those listed in the table below. 27 Table 3-1 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits Public Agency Aeprovals and Decisions City of Newport Beach . Approval of this IS/MND Approval of Site Development Review Approval of Conditional Use Permit (for restaurant) Issuance of Approval in Concept (AIC) Approval of temporary in-water staging location for dredging equipment (in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard) Issuance of Grading Permit and Building Permit • Issuance of Harbor Development Permit California Coastal Commission . Issuance of Coastal Development Permit County of Orange • Coordination with State Lands Commission as Trustee for submerged lands Issuance of an Encroachment Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit • Issuance of Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit • Issuance of Section 103 Permit to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413) National Marine Fisheries Service • Compliance with the Endangered Species (NMFS) Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, through consultation led by USACE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Consultation with USACE regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act ESA through Section 404 Permit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Consultation regarding suitability of (USEPA) dredged material management team DMMT approval process U.S. Coast Guard • Approval of temporary in-water staging location for dredging equipment Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality (RWQCB) Certification • Issuance of Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit California Department of Fish and • Letter of Authorization for harvesting and Wildlife CDFW transplanting Eelgrass. g� y w � I d r i d i g / P I r � C I / — I not t O \ FSR`n, III m N > Ly n \ _ � v _ � m QCC z ° de o < m LU w a I � 0 z > W = 1� aoa m I I I o h / I 1= W I al I O z 1 O JE 00 LUI N ; QI . CL e f o I I a w l ^ x � \ 1 � Iz _ w �, I 3NRpy3 O6 _ U5 /,... Q Q LU 311 Y3Htl31d w � w 1.31'�tl U Q O gV == U y d D "o hSe NZ a o z m 1S - °oa s c o e o I de � o ` N i� _ z ill Q m' c U - I m xd y a V lay a�� zip $ wom II Y Emw oQo mmm �U f 1 111 II Uv II m\ 1 Ili I I11 W a Si 1 .IJ III 7zX - - o - afo _ � w qIV 1 0 O SII I 8 H i ! hm & mow y 0 6 o W e 2 � OU L OS p � N d � � �g a a ` , / N f 1 W o I i I !�tj - -. 1 ! U 711, t 3 e a 0 � xe i 0 z e 2 5 � o L OS ! } & K/ / ; ) \� ; w� �-- _ e , ,2 ^ _fix 2 � - � « . c \ �m�� �� ^ / § � � � < . / - . , ` - � > y � § /�^ � ^�� ~ ` � � � ~ ƒ , y : : - � \ �2z ` � � �: . 5 \ � � \ \ 6 ! \ j j , \ � \\�� � . \ � � / �\2 � \ 2 � � � /\� , » \ \ /« 6) � \ \ / � . � � < <�\ , , /� � � � / �4\� � \ . , , � [ � } y �7y. < > � © } » { � ; � » \ z � \ / { \ . ® \ � ,\ \ � � «, \ � �\ ii � ( m j) a h v n a _ N - O M y z I a x u, = a - z c Z Q Y U f7 m 8 wm`�1 z ax U d m M N Q O a _ a a _ _ Yc m w ' L- 0 s � x ' N O o O C p� N �o O U m AE ii. l `m & t a & o o �a a � o 0 0 oW"• o 0 00 i1 o m o V7c a m N .-, O Nc o¢ C n N V d F m N Q m (6(111 N ni e r� p / 1410 u o i , ' z I I Y A n 1 \ 3 a � Z �a O i ME _ r i r 8 d R „ a A / r � \ L r JOB O BOB .® 13 E as eea � o AE ;o ss v� s. w :a es es ' es es as — as ® s es s 1 ` I , Y4y-• i JI r lk t y n Il •�I t ° °r I I 9� • p ��I J 3 C z � - a v g �v m m m o LLQ �6� U °i 0 o �..'. a' s �- �® z o � �\J a - Q =s de �,�.- � a a 8a,�s� �+ w"m � � � ��' �� <V�` ' � � o 2��� , � , � � -� - _ �� ��� _ � `;�, �, �� { � ` � � 8 '�. p I/I � � I A� / I li I� m n �� II nj� I m / / \ � �I -��� C J / /�� � { ,$ ; � � � d �, , � a —/--r� i _ ,� � � /{HR � I m�i� � IIU�/p � � a;m iii' — .i�..y '� p ` ''=z Pi p/ � h F // � mu cE _ dmm I � VN�v / LL� q 6 n dm A` / / � _ — _ 1��.�� � r m -mE��� 'En ___ i A' � �n mmuuo��f zaaamm`nw -— i t � — � � E 2 n m � � �0 4L=J A� - �u �_. E c y `M,.J� q �� ��� ,,. OS n a :.. u �,.. ,, m ° mE HS v ,m N c / L LL m d - ' o o ty. m � ._ a .QHS_-_ m E m _...� ., mcg r c .. - '° _ a A nm '• n v m a s ¢ ° 1 A ES � u m - m I ��u s\ �� I AS � y U .. V ° �• 85 0 9 w - a �, as m - - _ _ _ m o� ���`'� ptl m - o .o ® ES z w `o � �A�a �' sc ¢ "' t � t �. � m m o'o.o � N� � ® ® oc es a r a ._ a m ¢aaa s � � a hoz o ® Oc 85 y�Q � o o � w O m � D a �� � ® mom O 9 r LL O O� Z O QM c C w 3 tz y � � a i 6-p N n • I I � ~ a � n o > o p, ryi v OF q� G I I Q m 0 `o y N� d _ z ea n Oa � m � - m m07:S6 m m IV � b��b�b��9bb h� ��•d/g✓ / �•�� '' LdI ,I Qe INo m 3 " w I z — S S - y I a. � t - 3Z m o ■❑ S a m� 4.0 Project Information 1. Project Title Balboa Marina West 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive (P.O. Box 1768) Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach Planning Program Manager (949)644-3535 4. Project Location The Project site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach, California. Specifically, the Project site comprises 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. 5. Project Sponsors' Name and Address City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) 7. Zoning Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the Project, and any secondary, support,. or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Please refer to Section 3.0 for a detailed description of the proposed Project. 100 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the Project's surroundings: As previously discussed in Section 2.0 and presented in Figure 2-4, the Project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking, on the south by Linda Isle, a man-made island consisting of residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter, and on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots, and on the west by the channel of the Lower Newport Bay. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) Public Agency Approvals and Decisions California Coastal Commission • Issuance of Coastal Development Permit for the Project County of Orange • Coordination with State Lands Commission as Trustee for submerged lands Issuance of an Encroachment Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit • Issuance of Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit Issuance of Section 103 Permit to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 33 U.S.C. 1413 National Marine Fisheries Service • Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (NMFS) and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, through consultation led by USACE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Consultation with USACE regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act ESA through Section 404 Permit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Consultation regarding suitability of dredged (USEPA) material management team (DMMT) approval process U.S. Coast Guard • Approval of temporary in-water staging location for dredging equipment Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality (RWQCB) Certification • Issuance of Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit California Department of Fish and Letter of Authorization for harvesting and Wildlife CDFW transplanting Eelgrass. 101 No ORMitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checke d below wo uld be po tentially affected by this project, involving at least one i mpact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by t he checklist on the following pages. There were n o issues identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact." ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ® Hazards & Hazardous ® Hydrology/ Water Emissions Materials Quality ® Land Use and Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance 5.2 Determination fTo Be Completed By the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT hav e a significant e ffect on the ❑ environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant e ffect on t he environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by t he project proponent. A MI TIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ❑ an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact'or"potentially ❑ significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has be en addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attac hed sheets. An EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant e ffect on t he ❑ environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NE GATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are i mposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Submitted by. Patrick A ord, Cky of Newport Beach Planning Manager(Signature) Date Balboa Marina West August 18,2014 Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page 5-1 102 5.3 City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Summary Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse ❑ D ❑ ❑ effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundir s? d) Create a new source of ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ D Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ D agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ D or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 72220(8)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 57704(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ❑ ❑ =i p forest use? X03 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? III. AIR QUALITY Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ D ❑ implementation of the applicable air ualit lan? b) Violate any air quality standard ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ D ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone recursors)2 d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ D ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors ❑ ❑ D ❑ affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse ❑ D ❑ ❑ effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2D-y- Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse ❑ Q ❑ ❑ effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ Q ❑ ❑ on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ Q — ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conserve flon plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ Q change in the significance of a historical resource as defined In §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ Q ❑ ❑ change in the significance or an archaeological resource pursuant to§75064.5? 10� Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ O Including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ Q ❑ potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, in'ur , or death Involving: I) Rupture ora known ❑ ❑ Q ❑ earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground ❑ ❑ Q ❑ shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground ❑ ❑ Q ❑ failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result In on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ Q defined in Table 18- 7-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 1010 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Have soils incapable of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas ❑ ❑ M ❑ emissions, either directly or Indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ E policy or regulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhousegases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Pro ect: a) Create a significant hazard to ❑ E! ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to ❑ CI ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ D included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 10j Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project within an airport ❑ ❑ ❑ Q land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) impairlmplementation of or ❑ ❑ — Q physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation /an? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with Midlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete ❑ ❑ ❑ Q groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted)? 102 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ Q ❑ water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ Q ❑ ❑ water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ D flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 yearflood ❑ ❑ Q ❑ hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of levee or dam? P Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? 109 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable ❑ Q ❑ ❑ land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, orzoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established In the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent ❑ ❑ Q ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 110 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) A substantial temporary or ❑ Q ❑ ❑ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Pro ect: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ Q growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension ofroads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection2 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Policeprotection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 111 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ Q recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation Including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Q congestion management program, including, but not limited to level ofservice standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q patterns, including either an Increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 212 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Substantially increase hazards ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 due to a design feature (e.g,, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? XVII. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ Z ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? T) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ ❑ D construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ D ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 213 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ B ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and ❑ ❑ ❑ local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the ❑ z ❑ ❑ potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop be/ow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts ❑ ❑ z ❑ that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future rojects: c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 22�{' 5.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 5.4.1 Aesthetics a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas in the surrounding area. Mitigation is recommended to ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in compliance with City General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. Figure 5-1, Site Photos Key Map, along with the nine (9) site photographs shown on Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3, depict the existing conditions of the Project site as viewed from within the site and from the surrounding area. As shown on the photographic inventory, the land-side portion of the Project site is fully developed under existing conditions. The water-side portion of the site contains 105 boat slips and associated gangways accommodating vessels ranging in length from 22 to 58 feet. As depicted on Site Photos 1 through 3 (Figure 5-2), the eastern portion of the Project site consists primarily of a paved parking lot with ornamental landscaping and light poles. Landscaping elements mostly consist of shrubs within and along the northern edge of the site, with some scattered trees provided throughout the parking lot. To the south of the parking lot is the marina, with docked boats visible beyond the pedestrian access gates. In the distance, beyond the marina, are existing residential homes located on Linda Isle. The on-site, one-story commercial marina building occupied by a yacht brokerage business also is visible in the distance in the west-central portion of the site. As shown on Site Photo 4 (Figure 5-2) and Site Photo 5 (Figure 5-3), the western portions of the site also consist of a parking lot, with trees and shrubs scattered throughout the parking lot and a landscaped slope occurring at the north end of the parking lot. Along the western and southern edges of the parking lot is a low iron fence. A trash enclosure also occurs in the central portion of the site. Docked boats within the marina can be seen in the southwestern portions of the site, with more boats and existing residential homes on Linda Isle also visible to the south. Site Photos 6 through 8 (Figure 5-3) shows views of the Project site from off-site locations to the west. As shown on these photos, under existing conditions the Project site appears as a parking lot with shade trees visible from areas to the west. The parking lot is surrounded by white wrought iron fencing along the north, and a I ow iron fence along the western and southern edges of the site. An advertisement for the existing yacht brokerage is visible on the iron fence along the site's western boundary. Along the waterfront is an existing rock embankment with seawall, above which is bare ground with scattered vegetation. Immediately north of the site, 1115 • > ?f/V4,4 40 • ol m I .m i f ti if if oft 1 I fto V t , II I .1 I'iL(I 1 ry L r I� 1 1 W O� aQ L - • s o N a' rl � w W O D O � U y L U 0 'c y L z 9 E eo � m � p 5 3 3 x m co z° a _°o a O W y p m O m � C O a 6 O G _ o c o {3 & 6 L pM eJ 2 EY3 Y ' o o z z a e _ o 6 J N 0 a y � 0 2 m `o d > aC) { \ e ( / � - ( ! { ` ` } \ \ . ) { \ ,\ \ «, ii m j) off-site, is an existing beach and parking lot used for boat rentals. As shown on Site Photo 6 (Figure 5-3), docked boats and residential homes are visible beyond the site to the south. As shown on Site Photos 7 and 8 (Figure 5-3), tall buildings associated with Fashion Island are visible along the horizon to the east of the site, with the Newport Bay Bridge visible immediately north of the site. Coastal bluffs also can be seen in the distance beyond the Newport Bay Bridge. Site Photo 9 (Figure 5-3) depicts a representative view of the Project site from Linda Isle and the water surface between the Project site and Linda Isle. As shown, views of the Project site from this location primarily are composed of views of the existing boat slips and docked vessels. Shade trees within the Balboa Marina parking lot also are visible in the distance, as is the Newport Bay Bridge. General Plan Visual Resources Policies The Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan identifies goals and policies for the protection of visual resources within the City. The General Plan also identifies key public view points and coastal view roads for protection and/or enhancement, which are depicted on Figure 5-4, General Plan Coastal Views Map. As shown on Figure 5-4, East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive are both designated as "Coastal View Roads." Additionally, and as also shown on Figure 5-4, the General Plan identifies the following public view points within close proximity to the Project site: • Harbor Island Road at Bayside Drive • West Coast Highway within Mariner's Mile • Western Shore of Newport Bay Immediately North of the Coast Highway Bridge Applicable General Plan policies related to the City's coastal views are as follows: Policy NR 20, 1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. Policy NR 20.3 Protect and enhance public view corridors from the [Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge], and other locations may be identified In the future. Policy NR 20.4 Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. Related to the City's key public view points and coastal view roads, Site Photo 1 (Figure 5-2) depicts views of the Project site from Bayside Drive near the intersection with East Coast Highway. Site Photos 5 and 6 (Figure 5-3) depict views of the site from the Newport Bay Bridge. 119 \ _ ^ } �P \ 2 \ \ \\ \ \ \ 9 ` \ z z A . - : • � ! ` ii i m 2\ Site Photo 5 also represents views of the site from Newport Bay north of the Coast Highway Bridge. Although the Project site is in close proximity to Mariner's Mile, the site is not visible along East Coast Highway within Mariner's Mile due to intervening development and landscaping. The site also would not be visible from the intersection of Harbor Island Road at Bayside Drive, as views of the site from this location are completely obstructed by existing residential development and associated landscaping. Additional public view points are identified on Figure 5-4 within relatively close proximity to the site; however, the Project site is not visible from these additional view points due to intervening topography, landscaping, and development. Although not identified as a public view point on Figure 5-4, an existing public access ramp occurs at the west end of the Newport Bay Bridge, along the south side of East Coast Highway. This location, which is depicted on Site Photo 7 (Figure 5-3), provides prominent views of Newport Bay and the Project site. The existing pathway at this location is utilized by the public to access trails available along the western shore of Newport Harbor, beneath the Newport Harbor Bridge. As such, this location also is analyzed herein. An existing residential community occurs on Linda Isle. Homes along the northern shore of Linda Isle and boaters in Newport Bay have prominent views of Balboa Marina. Because the proposed Project has the potential to affect views from Newport Bay, this location also is analyzed herein. Private views from residential properties on Linda Isle are not subject to analysis under CEQA; regardless, views from Linda Isle would be affected in approximately the same manner as views experienced by boaters using Newport Bay and the water channel between Linda Isle and the Project site. As previously indicated, and to summarize, the Project site would only be visible from one (1) of the view points identified on the General Plan Coastal Views Map (Figure 5- 4): along the western shore of Newport Bay immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge. Additionally, the Project site would be visible from portions of East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, both of which are identified by the General Plan as Coastal View Roads. Moreover, Newport Bay is a major recreational resource within the City, and the Project has the potential to adversely affect views from Newport Bay. Analysis of Potential Impacts to Coastal View Roads ♦ Bayside Drive and East Coast Highway Easterly of Bayside Drive Site Photo 1 (Figure 5-2) depicts views of the Project site from Bayside Drive near the intersection with East Coast Highway. This is the only portion of Bayside Drive from which the Project site is visible, as views from the remaining segments of Bayside Drive are obstructed by existing development and landscaping. As shown, existing views of the Project site from Bayside Drive and from segments of East Coast Highway located easterly of Bayside Drive encompass the existing parking lot and the existing Sol Restaurant. Views of the remaining portions of the site are obstructed from this location by the existing restaurant building and parking lot landscaping. Upon implementation of the proposed Project, only minor improvements to the reconfigured parking lot and associated landscaping would be visible from this location. The proposed marine commercial building would not be visible from any portion of Bayside Drive, nor would it 121 be visible from segments of East Coast Highway located easterly of Bayside Drive. Because the Project site appears as an existing parking lot with landscaping under existing conditions, and the only Project-related improvements that would be visible would consist of the reconfigured parking lot and new landscaping, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on these Coastal View Roads. ♦ East Coast Highway Westerly of Bayside Drive Visual Simulation Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (refer to Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9) depict a comparison of existing views available from this segment of East Coast Highway, along with renderings of how the site would appear following Project implementation. As shown, under existing conditions the Project site appears as an existing parking lot with shade trees visible throughout. The rip-rap slope and seawall also are v isible at the Project site's interface with Newport Bay. Several docked boats are visible along the southern edge of the site. The existing one-story on-site marine commercial building occupied by a yacht brokerage is not visible from the Newport Bay Bridge, although views of this existing building are afforded further east along East Coast Highway (i.e., between the bridge and Bayside Drive). As shown on Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9, with implementation of the proposed Project, the proposed marine commercial building, gangways, and new public and private boat slips (and associated boats) would be visible from this segment of East Coast Highway. The proposed boat slips and docked boats would not represent a substantial change in the site's existing visual character, as the new boat slips would merely comprise an extension of the existing boat slips occurring in this portion of Newport Harbor. Likewise, improvements planned to the parking lot would not represent a substantial change to the site's existing visual character, as such improvements would be scarcely visible from off-site locations. However, the proposed marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to existing views from East Coast Highway, and therefore has the potential to adversely affect views from East Coast Highway westerly of Bayside Drive. Because the Approval in Concept (AIC) application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual building design, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. The visual simulations presented on Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9 reflect a conceptual design for the building. Specifics regarding the building's architecture would be identified as part of the Project's Site Development Review (SDR), which is a subsequent application that would be submitted to the City should the AIC be approved. Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and general architectural style would be compatible with similar uses in the Project vicinity, including the existing restaurants located east of the Project site, it is not possible by review of the AIC to definitely determine if the architectural components of the proposed marine commercial building would adversely affect views from this segment of East Coast Highway. Therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed building would not adversely affect views from East Coast Highway, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 on the proposed Project to ensure compliance with General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies, which specify architectural standards that must be incorporated into the 122 design for the proposed marine commercial building. The standards identified in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan would ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, with implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's potential visual impacts to this segment of East Coast Highway would be reduced to a level below significant. Analysis of Potential Impacts to Public View Points ♦ Western Shore of Newport Bay Immediately North of Coast Highway Bridge Visual Simulation 5 (Figure 5-10) depicts existing views of the site from a p ublicly- accessible trail located in Castaways Park, west of Newport Bay and north of East Coast Highway. As shown, under existing conditions the Project site is scarcely visible beyond the Coast Highway Bridge from this location. Existing site elements visible from this location include shade trees within the parking lot, small portions of the parking lot itself, and docked boats located along the southern edge of the Project site. Dominating views from this location are t he Coast Highway Bridge and existing residences located on Linda Isle, as well as Newport Harbor itself. As shown in the visual simulation presented on Figure 5-10, with implementation of the proposed Project the upper portions of the proposed marine commercial building would be visible, as would additional boats that would utilize the new public and private boat slips. The proposed boat slips and docked boats would not represent a substantial change in the site's existing visual character, as the new boat slips would merely comprise an extension of the existing boat slips available in this portion of Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot would not be prominently visible from this location and would not appear substantially different from the existing condition. Although some minor changes to the configuration of the site's shade trees are proposed, the new landscaping would not substantially change the site's visual character as viewed from this location. The introduction of the new marine commercial building to this vantage point would be visible and perceived as a v isual change as compared to the existing condition. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual building design, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. The visual simulation presented in Figure 5- 10 is based on a conceptual design of the building. Specifics regarding the building's architectural details would be specified in a subsequent application, as part of the Project's Site Development Review (SDR), should the AIC be approved. 123 1 J� •b ry ,A. tr � Y `.���„ 1�•�F�xi q1!I.LAY yr9 Ate, ® Ito ® — l allt 10 LAI }. j 7- j Fit F' r I' - I• I NOT SC.nLE • • � . I • i0 ME ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis �wnt"'Fii!I 4111111r, ON BEFORE Hit ! . �.' �u • MIS• • r_14 AFTER Source;BCV(06-23-2014) Figure 5-6 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 1 Balboa Marina West August 18, 20)4 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-24 1215 so Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 EnVronmental Cheddist and EnVronmental Analysis BEFORE -- AFTER Source(s):BCV (06-23-2014) Figure 5-7 Noi SC/ilE so ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis BEFORE AFTER Source(s):BCV(06-23-2014) Figure 5-8 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 3 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-26 2�� so ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis i BEFORE i Wwa Y i AFTER Source(s):BCV(06-23-2014) Figure 5-9 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 4 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-27 122 �.c r so Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 EnVronmental Cheddist and EnVronmental Analysis BEFORE Source(s):BCV(06-23-2014) AFTER mFigure 5-10 (�I J ^'o, scue ro ASIMULATION so ■� Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis BEFORE r, AFTER Source(s):BCV(06-23-2014) Figure 5-11 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 6 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-29 ISO Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and architectural style would appear generally consistent with the existing residential homes on Linda Isle from this vantage, it is not possible to definitively determine whether the proposed architectural components of the building would adversely affect views from this location based on the conceptual building design contained in the AIC application. Therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed building does not adversely affect views from this public view point, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, which specifies architectural standards that must be incorporated into the design of the proposed marine commercial building. The standards identified in Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 are intended to ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, impacts to publicly accessible areas located northerly of the Coast Highway Bridge on the west side of Newport Harbor would be less than significant. ♦ Existing Pedestrian Ramp at West End of Coast Highway Bridge Existing views of the Project site from the existing pedestrian ramp are similar to those described above for the segment of East Coast Highway located westerly of Bayside Drive (refer to Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9). As indicated in the above analysis of this segment of East Coast Highway, the only element of the Project that has the potential to adversely affect scenic views available from the existing pedestrian ramp would be the proposed marine commercial building, primarily because the architectural components of the proposed structure would not be defined until future applications for an SDR are filed with the City. In order to ensure that the proposed building does not adversely affect views from this existing pedestrian ramp, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 on the proposed Project, which specifies that the building must comply with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies, which include architectural standards that must be incorporated into the design for the proposed marine commercial building. Compliance with applicable policies would ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a substantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, with implementation of 131 the required mitigation, the Project's visual impacts to the existing pedestrian ramp would be reduced to a level below significant. ♦ Boaters in Newport Bay (and Linda Isle Residences) Boaters in Newport Bay have prominent views of the Balboa Marina and the proposed Project has the potential to affect existing public views from the water. Private views from residential properties on Linda Isle are not subject to analysis under CEQA; regardless, views from Linda Isle would be affected in approximately the same manner as views experienced by boaters using Newport Bay and the water channel between Linda Isle and the Project site. Site Photo 9 (Figure 5-3) depicts a representative view of the Project site from Newport Bay. As shown, views of the Project site from this location under existing conditions primarily include views of the existing boat slips and docked vessels. Shade trees within the parking lot also are visible in the distance, as is the Newport Bay Bridge. Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-6 depict visual simulations of the proposed marine commercial building and new boat slips as they would be visible from Linda Isle and the Newport Bay Channel. As shown, with implementation of the Project, additional docked boats would be visible at the west end of the existing boat slips, while the proposed marine commercial building and portions of the site's landscaping would be visible above the docked boats. The addition of boat slips would not represent a significant adverse change, as the new docked boats and boat slips would merely appear as a continuation of the existing boat slips that dominate this portion of the Newport Harbor. Additionally, proposed landscape elements would not appear substantially different from the existing condition. Thus, the Project's only potential to impact views from boaters using Newport Bay would be associated with the proposed marine commercial building. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual building design, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. The visual simulation presented on Figure 5- 11 reflects a conceptual design for the building. Specifics regarding the building's architecture would be identified as part of the Project's SDR, which is a subsequent application that would be submitted to the City should the AIC be approved. Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and general architectural style would appear generally consistent with the existing developments visible from this location (i.e., existing restaurants located easterly of the Project site), it is not possible by review of the AIC to definitely determine if the architectural components of the proposed marine commercial building would adversely affect views from the water surface of Newport Bay. Therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed building does not adversely affect views, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 on the proposed Project, which specifies that the building design must comply with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies, compliance with which would ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. 132 Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a substantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, impacts to public views would be less than significant. Conclusion As indicated in the preceding analysis, although the Project would introduce a new marine commercial building that could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in a manner that provides architecturally enhanced components while demonstrating compatibility with existing developed elements in the surrounding viewshed. Changes due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would merely appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that occur in Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot and associated landscaping would not be prominently visible from off-site locations and would not represent a substantial change as compared to the existing condition. Therefore, and assuming implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, Project-related impacts to scenic vistas would be reduced to below a level of significance. b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Finding: No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. The Project site is not visible from a State scenic highway. Therefore, there is no potential for impacts to occur. The State Legislature created a Scenic Highway Program in 1963, which is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. There are n o officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach; however, State Route 1 (SR-1, "East Coast Highway") is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. A State scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The City must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in local codes. (Newport Beach, 2006b, p. 4.1-13) 133 There are no officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within Newport Beach. Although SR-1 (East Coast Highway) is identified as Eligible, the City has not applied for State designation. Under existing conditions, the Project site consists of the existing Balboa Marina, including an improved parking lot, one one-story building, and 105 boat slips with associated gangways. As shown on Site Photos 1 through 4 (Figure 5-2) and Site Photo 5 (Figure 5-3), the Project site does not contain scenic trees or rock outcroppings. Additionally, no historic resources are I ocated on the property. Newport Harbor is considered scenic. The proposed Project has no potential to damage scenic resources within a S tate scenic highway, because East Coast Highway is not a S tate scenic highway. Accordingly, no impact would occur to scenic resources visible from a State scenic highway. c) Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are n of definitive at this time. In order to ensure that the future design of the building does not degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, mitigation is recommended. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. The Project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and existing one-story building containing a yacht brokerage, construct a new marine commercial building, reconfigure the existing parking lot and associated landscaping, construct a new public boat dock, and add 24 new private boat slips to the private marina. As discussed earlier in this section, installation of a new public boat dock and additional private boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips located in this portion of Newport Harbor; accordingly, the proposed boat slips would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of Newport Harbor or its surroundings. Similarly, the proposed reconfiguration of the existing parking lot and associated landscape improvements would not be prominently visible from off-site locations, and to the extent these improvements are visible, they would not differ markedly from the site's existing condition. The amount of landscaping is proposed to increase from approximately 15% coverage to 25% coverage, which would provide greater visual relief to the paved parking surfaces. The proposed marine commercial building is the Project's only component with a potential to adversely affect the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. Specifics regarding the building's architecture would be identified 23.4 as part of the Project's SDR, which is a subsequent application that would be submitted to the City should the AIC be approved. Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and general architectural style would be compatible with similar uses in the Project site's vicinity, it is not possible by review of the AIC to definitely determine if the components of the proposed marine commercial building would adversely affect the visual quality or character of the site or its surroundings. In order to ensure that no elements of the proposed structure's architectural design would degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings, Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 is recommended related to architectural standards that must be incorporated into the design of the proposed marine commercial building. Mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies and reduce potential visual character impacts to a level below significant. During the Project's temporary construction period, construction equipment, supplies, and activities would be visible on the subject property from immediately surrounding areas. The major construction equipment expected to be used is described in Section 3, Project Description. Construction activities are a common occurrence in the City of Newport Beach and the region of southern California and are not considered to substantially degrade the area's visual quality. All construction equipment would be removed from the Project site following completion of the Project's construction activities. For these reasons, the temporary visibility of construction equipment and activities at the Project site would not substantially degrade the visual character of the surrounding area. Visual character changes associated with construction would be less-than-significant. d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. With mandatory adherence to the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting), the Project would not produce a new source of artificial light that could adversely affect day or nighttime views. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a c onceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's exterior architectural materials are not definitive at this time. In order to ensure that the future design of the building does not include reflective materials that could cause glare, PDFs are recommended. With implementation of the recommended PDFs, impacts would be reduced to a I evel below significant. Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the City's Zoning Code regulates outdoor lighting, and includes standards that are intended "...to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, overlighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures..." (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070). The City of Newport Beach is primarily built-out; therefore, a substantial amount of ambient light from urban uses 135 already exists. Similar to other developed urban areas, sources of light and glare include neon signs, glass building facades, streetlights, parking lot lights, automotive headlights, etc. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.1-13) All development within the City is required to comply with Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the City's Zoning Code, including the following requirements: All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings shall be full cut-off fixtures (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070.A.1). Spotlighting or floodlighting used to illuminate buildings, statues, signs, or any other objects mounted on a pole, pedestal, or platform or used to accentuate landscaping shall consist of full cut-off or directionally shielded lighting fixtures that are aimed and controlled so that the directed light shall be substantially confined to the object intended to be illuminated to minimize glare, sky glow, and light trespass. The beam width shall not be wider than that needed to light the feature with minimum spillover. The lighting shall not shine directly into the window of a residence or directly into a roadway. Light fixtures attached to a building shall be directed downward (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070.C). Dock and gangway lighting would be provided as currently exists at the Balboa Marina and would be located under the handrails. Parking lot lighting is proposed to be upgraded to energy-efficient fixtures. Fixtures would be placed to reduce "spill over" lighting to surrounding properties. The proposed fixtures area c ombination of decorative and utilitarian poles and are required to be spaced to comply with City of Newport Beach minimum light level requirements and to meet standard safety requirements. The proposed marine commercial building would also introduce artificial light sources, including lights inside the building and visible through windows, lights mounted on the exterior walls of the building, and lights placed in the proposed outdoor patio that would be visible from off-site locations. Because the parking lot is illuminated by light fixtures under existing conditions, there would be no increase in the amount of ambient light generated by the parking lot with implementation of the proposed Project. As such, planned replacement of the parking lot lighting elements would not represent a n ew source of light or glare that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Therefore, there would be no impact in association with parking lot lighting elements. The primary source of new lighting elements associated with the Project would be from the new gangway lighting fixtures as well as lighting elements anticipated as part of the new marine commercial building. Although this represents an increase in lighting levels on the site as compared to the existing condition, the proposed lighting elements would be consistent with other lighting elements that occur both on-site and within the surrounding area. The new gangway lighting would be similar in character to the lighting elements already associated with the Balboa Marina's existing gangways. Furthermore, the gangway lighting would be installed under the handrails, thereby 13( preventing any light from spilling on to adjacent properties or creating a new source of sky glow. Similarly, lighting that would be associated with the marine commercial building and its outdoor patio would be similar to existing lighting sources in the area. Lighting is anticipated to consist of relatively low levels of illumination, and would appear similar in intensity to lighting associated with existing restaurant and residential uses in the Project's viewshed. Furthermore, proposed lighting elements would be subject to Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the City's Zoning Code, which regulates outdoor lighting, and includes standards that are intended "...to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, overlighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures..." (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070). Due to mandatory compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.070 and the relatively minor increase in lighting intensity proposed by the Project, Project lighting elements would have a I ess-than-significant impact on nighttime views. Although not anticipated, the proposed marine commercial building has the potential to create new sources of glare if constructed of materials with a high reflective value (e.g., metal, glass, etc.). Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's exterior architectural materials are not definitive at t his time. However, the architectural design concept is a Mediterranean style, which does not typically include expansive metal and reflective glass elements. In order to ensure that the future design of the building does not include reflective materials that could cause glare, Mitigation Measure MM AE-2 is recommended. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. Aesthetics : Mitigation Measures MM AE-1 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE-2 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non-reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AE-1 and MM AE-2 would reduce the Project's potential impacts to aesthetics to below a level of significance. 137 5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No Impact. The Project site contains developed marina and water surface and is identified by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) as containing "Urban and Built-Up Land." In addition, the Project site does not contain any soils mapped by the CDC as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach, including the Project site, is almost entirely built-out and does not contain any significant agricultural resources (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Appendix A, p. 23). Additionally, according to mapping conducted by the CDC as part of the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Project site is identified as containing "Urban and Built-Up Land." The Project site and surrounding areas do not contain any soils mapped by the CDC as P rime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. (CDC, 2010) Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No Impact. According to information available from the California Department of Conservation (CDC), there are no agricultural lands subject to a Williamson Act Contract within the City of Newport Beach. The Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). Properties north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are zoned as Planned Community (PC-9). Properties bordering the Lower Newport Bay channel and located east of the Project site are zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). East of Bayside Drive properties are zoned Commercial General (CG 0.3 FAR). 138 Properties located to the south on Linda Isle are zoned Single-Unit Residential (R-1). There are no existing or proposed agricultural zoning designations affecting the Project site or surrounding area. As such, the Project has no potential to conflict with agricultural zoning designations, and no impact would occur. According to information available from the California Department of Conservation (CDC), there are no agricultural lands subject to a Williamson Act Contract within the City of Newport Beach. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. (CDC, 2012). No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 72220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 57704(g))? Finding: No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site and properties surrounding the Project site, that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project site contains a developed marina and water surface area. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with existing forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production areas. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site and surrounding land areas are fully developed with urban uses under existing conditions. There are no forest resources on the site or within the vicinity of the Project site. There are no lands within the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site and properties surrounding the Project site, that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (Newport Beach, 2010). Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to impact properties zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. As such, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use Finding: No Impact. The Project site is comprised of a developed marina and water surface area and does not contain forest land. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach, including the Project site and properties surrounding the Project site, does not contain any forest lands (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Table 3- 2). Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land X39 or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would not involve any changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As indicated in the analysis presented above under the discussion and analysis of Thresholds a) through d) of this section, the Project site and surrounding areas do not contain any lands that are used for farmland or forest land. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Mitiaation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact agriculture and forestry resources. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.3 Ali Qua0/y a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or "Basin"). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, respectively; and the San Diego County line to the south. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. 140 The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadline for meeting federal attainment standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or course particulate matter (PM,o). In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to reduce air emissions in the Basin. The current attainment status of the SCAB is shown on Table 5-1, SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status, below. SCAQMD adopted the most recent updates to their AQMP in December 2012. The 2012 AQMP provides an outline to achieve reductions in emissions while improving air quality within the SCAB. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 6) The 2012 AQMP relies on the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which assumes the implementation of land uses called for by adopted General Plans throughout the SCAG region, to predict air pollutant emissions and plan for air quality improvement. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with their AQMP. These criteria are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and are discussed below. As indicated in the below analysis, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP. There are no other air quality plans applicable to the Project area. Accordingly, impacts due to a potential conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of an applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 31) Table 5-1 SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status Pollutant State Federal Ozone Extreme Non-attainment Non-attaiimient PM10 Serious Non-attainment Non-attainment PM2.5 Non-attainment Non-attainment Sox Attainment Attainment co Attainment Attainment NOx Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Other(vinyl chloride, Unclassified or Attainment Unclassified or Attainment hydrogen sulfide,etc) (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 4-2) • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if local significance thresholds (LSTs) were 1-41 exceeded. As evaluated asp art of the proposed Project's LST analysis (refer to Threshold b), below, the Project's localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities) (SCAQMD, 2008b). The proposed Project does not include such uses; thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions associated with the proposed Project, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the LSTs and the proposed Project's operational activities are determined to be consistent with the first criterion and a I ess-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, construction and operational activities associated with the proposed Project are determined to be consistent with Criterion No. 1 . • Consistency Criterion No. Z: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the ROMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The 2012 AQMP assumes development associated with the build-out of General Plans adopted by cities and counties in the SCAG region. The proposed Project is consistent with the site's existing General Plan land use designation of "Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR)." As such, the Project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP assumptions for the Project site, and the Project would not exceed the air emissions projected in the 2012 AQMP based on General Plan land use assumptions. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would be consistent with Criterion No. 2. b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project site is located within the SCAB and within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAB does not attain State of California or federal air quality standards for ozone, PM,o, or fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) (refer above to Table 5-1). The Air Basin's air pollution problem is a c onsequence of the combination of emissions and meteorological conditions which are adverse to the dispersion of those emissions. The summertime maximum mixing height (an index of how well pollutants can be dispersed vertically in the atmosphere) in Southern California averages the lowest in the U.S. Additionally, the Southern California area has abundant sunshine, which drives the photochemical reactions that form pollutants such as ozone. In the SCAB, high concentrations of ozone are normally recorded during the spring and summer months, while high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are generally recorded in late fall and winter. High PMio and PM2.5 concentrations can occur throughout the year, but occur most frequently in the fall and winter. Although there are changes in air pollutant emissions by season, the observed variations in the pollutant concentrations are largely a result of seasonal differences in weather conditions. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 2) 142 According to the current data from the SCAQMD and the California Air Resource Board (CARB), in 2012 there were a total of 111 days during which the new 8-hour ozone standard in SCAB locations were exceeded. The number of days exceeding the federal ozone standard varied widely by area, from zero to 86 exceedances, depending on location, with the majority of exceedances occurring in the Riverside and San Bernardino County regions. Exceedances were fewer at the coast (including the City of Newport Beach), increasing to a m aximum in the Basin's Central San Bernardino Mountains and inland valleys, and then decreasing further downwind in the Basin's far inland areas. In 2012, CO concentrations in the SCAB did not exceed the State of California or federal standards for either the 1-hour or 8-hour concentrations. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 10) Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 of Technical Appendix A summarizes the most recently released air quality monitoring data for the monitoring stations closest to the Project site (e.g., SRA #17 and SRA #18). The most recent data (2012) indicates that there was one day on which the federal 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded, one day on which the State of California 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded, and two days on which the State of California 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded. The CO concentrations in the region did not exceed federal or state standards with the maximum measured levels at 2.8 ppm for the 8-hour CO standards. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 10) To identify projects that will adversely affect the region's air quality through direct and indirect sources, the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for air pollutants. The SCAQMD established these significance thresholds, in part, based on Section 182 (e) of the Federal Clean Air Act, which identified levels of volatile organic gases (VOCs) from stationary sources operating in extreme non-attainment regions for ozone at 10 tons per year. The value set by the CAA was converted into threshold levels in pounds per day for the construction and operational phases of a project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 14) The SCAQMD states that any project located in the SCAB having daily emissions from both direct and indirect sources that exceed the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant on both a direct and cumulative basis. Thus, if the proposed Project would produce air emissions that equal or exceed any of the criteria listed in Table 5-2, the emissions will be considered significant on both a direct and cumulative basis. In addition, the California State 1-hour and 8-hour CO standard is used for determining the existence of CO Hotspots created directly or indirectly by a project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 14). (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 14) Air quality impacts/emissions associated with a p roject can be placed into two categories, temporary (short-term) or long-term emissions. Temporary (short-term) emissions are generally associated with the demolition, grading, and construction activities of the project while long-term emissions are associated with the day-to-day operation, use, and area emissions from such activities as vehicle use, consumer product use, and energy generation/consumption. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) The following provides an analysis based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD, which are based on State of California and federal air quality standards. 1.43 Table 5-2 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operation NO. 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day ROGNOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day (KPC EHS, 2014,Table 4-5) Construction-Related Air Pollutant Emissions The firm KPC EHS Consultants prepared a report on the Project's calculated air emissions, which is contained as Appendix A to this document. To perform the calculations, the proposed Project's construction schedule is based on 15 months for all construction-related activities (dredging, pile installation (water and land), demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating). The emissions calculations assume that the majority of the equipment is operating 5 days per week for 6 to 8 hours each day. This is an aggressive estimate because it is highly unlikely that the majority of the equipment would be operated at this assumed schedule producing the calculated emissions each day; thus, the analysis herein is conservative in nature. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) The proposed Project's construction equipment estimates are b ased on details provided to KPC EHS Consultants from the Joint Project Applicants and by use of CaIEEMod Defaults. The type and number of equipment chosen for each phase of construction was selected to present a "worst-case" scenario for construction related emissions; in most cases the equipment types and numbers may be less than those disclosed. (KPC EHS, 2014, pp. 15-16) The analysis for the proposed Project is unique in that it includes both land-side and water-side components. The schedule for construction activities are estimated to occur over 15-months of active construction, with land-side and water-side activities occurring simultaneously. Increasing the construction timeline to longer than 15 months would allow for each task in the project to be completed over a greater timeline, which in some cases, such as demolition, grading and coatings, would decrease the estimated daily emissions presented Appendix and summarized herein. The analysis in Appendix presents a "worst-case" scenario as it assumes that all equipment in the various phases will be operating each day for the total estimated hours during project schedule. By analyzing the total number of equipment and hours each day it provides estimations for emissions at the highest anticipated levels. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) Construction emissions can be distinguished as either on-site or off-site. On-site emissions generated during construction principally consist of exhaust emissions from construction equipment, fugitive dust from grading and excavation, and reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from asphalt paving and architectural painting. Off-site emissions during construction typically consist of exhaust emissions from truck traffic and worker 14.4 commute trips; road dust associated with traffic to and from the construction site; and fugitive dust from trucks hauling materials, construction debris, or excavated soils from the site. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) Tables 5-2 through 5-10 found in Technical Appendix A present the unmitigated emission levels for the following phases of Project construction: dredging; demolition and site preparation; site grading; pile installation (land-side); pile installation and dock construction (water-side); building construction; pile installation and dock construction (land-side); site work, drainage, and paving; and tenant improvements and architectural coatings. Below, Table 5-3, Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions, presents the Project's projected maximum daily construction emissions for each pollutant prior to the incorporation of mitigation or compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements, such as SCAQMD Rule 403, "Fugitive Dust;" SCAQMD Rule 431.2, "Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;" SCAQMD Rule 1113, "Architectural Coatings;" SCAQMD Rule 1186, "PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;" and SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, "Less-Polluting Street Sweepers." Implementation of regulatory requirements would decrease the emissions lower than indicated in Table 5-3. Emissions from the various Project phases were estimated using the CaIEEMod modeling program. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) As shown in Table 5-3, the maximum daily construction-related emissions for the proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for all regulated air pollutants. Therefore, the Project's near-term construction emissions would be less than significant. These emissions would be short-term and cease at the completion of construction activity. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) Table 5-3 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions Emissions pounds per da Maximum Daily Emissions NOx ROG I CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 70.23 33.96 47.81 0.11 7.96 4.96 -Regional Threshold 100 75 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Regional NO NO NO NO NO NO Threshold? Source: SCAQMD and CaVMod (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 5.1( NO.-nitrogen oxide SOx-sulfer dioxide ROG-reactive organic gasses PMio-course particulate matter CO-carbon monoxide PM2.5-fine particulate matter Area and Operational-Related Air Pollutant Emissions The firm KPC EHS Consultants prepared a report on the Project's calculated air emissions, which is contained as Appendix A to this document. Data contained in Appendix A and summarized below was obtained by KPC EHS Consultants using the CalEEMod program reports and EPA NonRoad Model to calculate the total values for Area and Operational Emissions. The Area and Operations Emissions calculated in 145 Appendix A are presented in Table 5-4, Area and Operational Emissions. Table 5-4 includes emissions from the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the Project site, consumer product use, and from vehicle trips associated with the movement of materials, products, residents, visitors and employees, and watercraft/marina operations. No mitigation measures were employed in the modeling and calculation of the area and operational emissions. As shown in Table 5-4, Project area and operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants prior to mitigation. Therefore, long-term area and operational air quality emissions associated with the Project would be less than significant. Table 5-4 Area and Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions Emissions (pounds per da NOx VOC CO sox PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.00029 2.6713 0.0307 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 Energy 1.1468 0.1262 0.9633 0.0068 0.0872 0.0872 Mobile 8.1948 9.3431 36.2211 0.0680 4.7338 1.3327 Watercraft/Marina 34.63 (*2) 6.46 0.90 0.72 (*2) Total(•1) 43.97 12.14 43.68 0.97 5.54 1.4200 Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Regional NO NO NO NO NO NO Threshold? Source: SCAQMD, CalEEMod,and EPA NonRoad Model. (*1)Totals are from the CalEEMod reports and NonRoad Calculations for watercraft,due to rounding total may higher than toof the columns when added. *2 Emissions Vo,C&PM2.5 are not modeled for watercraft by EPA NonRoad Model. (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 5-14) c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As previously indicated in Table 5-1, the SCAB does not achieve the State of California and/or federal standards for ozone, PMio, and PM2.5. As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Threshold b) above, and as previously presented in Table 5-3, Project-related construction-related emissions of VOCs, NOx, and CO (all of which are ozone precursors), and construction-related emissions of PM2.5 and PMio, are all calculated to be below the SCAQMD's regional thresholds of significance. As previously shown in Table 5-4, Project-generated area and operational emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PMio also are calculated to be below the SCAQMD's regional thresholds. 140 Furthermore, Table 5-5, below under Threshold d), shows that construction activities associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. Given these factors, near-term construction and long-term operational emissions would not substantially contribute to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable. d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction-related pollutant concentrations. Under long-term conditions, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large. Sensitive receptors and associated facilities that house them in proximity to local CO sources, toxic air contaminants, or odors are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons suffering from illness and are normally associated with locations such as schools, day-care facilities, convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. Sensitive receptors located closest to the Project site include the residential homes on Linda Isle located south of the Project site. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) CO Hot Spot Analysis High levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and in particular slow moving and idling vehicles. Depending on the existing background concentrations of CO, roadways have the potential to be CO hot spots. Evaluations according to SCAQMD recommendations need to be conducted to ensure that sensitive receptors will not be exposed to localized concentrations of the criteria pollutant CO. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) CO Hot Spots are typically associated with idling vehicles at extremely busy intersections (i.e., intersections with an excess of 100,000 vehicle trips per day) in areas with unusual meteorological and topographical conditions. Over the years CO standards have become increasingly strict resulting in a decrease in CO emissions from mobile sources (cars, trucks, etc.). CO attainment was analyzed as part of the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the SCAQMD, and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide. The 1992 Federal CO Attainment Plan included CO Hotspot analyses which were conducted at four major intersections in the City of Los Angeles. The busiest of the four intersections evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, with a daily traffic volume at the time of the study being in excess of 100,000 vehicles per day. None of the four intersections modeled as part of the study were found to have CO emissions that exceeded State of California or federal standards. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 28) 1-x(-7 At buildout of the proposed Project, the busiest intersections in the Project vicinity would attract traffic that is well below the 100,000 vehicle trips per day threshold typically associated with CO Hot Spots. In addition, there are no unique topographical or meteorological conditions in the Project site's vicinity that could contribute to the formation of a CO Hot Spot. The SCAB has been designated as an attainment area for CO since 2007. Therefore, Project-related vehicular emissions would not create a Hot Spot and would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected CO Hot Spot. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 28) Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis In addition, Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed by the SCAQMD in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 26) The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of a project are above or below State of California standards. In the case of CO and NO2, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State of California or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to PMio and PM2.5, both of which are non-attainment pollutants. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 26) The LST methodology is applicable to projects where emission sources occupy a fixed location. This means that the LST methodology applies to projects during construction because, although construction equipment may move around a construction site, their movements are restricted to a fixed location. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 27) A construction LST analysis for the proposed Project was performed by the firm KPC EHS Consultants, and the results are included a report attached as Appendix A to this document. The LST analysis is based on the applicable LSTs established by the State of California and SCAQMD. This analysis assumes the Project would comply with applicable regional air quality requirements, including: SCAQMD Rule 403, "Fugitive Dust;" SCAQMD Rule 431.2, "Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;" SCAQMD Rule 1113, "Architectural Coatings;" SCAQMD Rule 1186, "PMlo Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;" and SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, "Less-Polluting Street Sweepers." Table 5-5, LST Emissions - Construction, depicts the results of the LST analysis. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 27) 148 Table 5-5 LST Emissions—Construction Pollutant LST Project Exceeds Significance Emissions Threshold? Threshold CalEEMod Lbs/Da * Lbs/Da NOx 190 70.23 No CO 1,864 47.81 No PM10 44 7.96 No Construction PM10 11 5.54 No (Operations) PM2.5 11 4.96 No Construction PM2.5 3 1.42 No (Operations) *Based on LST SRA #18 Receptor at 50 meters. (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 5-15) The LST emissions analysis was based on the SCAQMD's 5-acre model with emissions data from the CaIEEMod analysis with values for equipment and construction phase scheduling per the Joint Project Applicants' estimates or default values. As shown in Table 5-5, the Project's construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant because the LST emissions are all projected to be below the SCAQMD's LST significance thresholds. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 27) In regards to Project operation, the proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a new marine commercial building, improvements to Balboa Marina to provide a new public boat dock and additional private boat slips, and the reconfiguration of an existing parking lot. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project only if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities) (SCAQMD, 2008b). The proposed Project does not include such uses; thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions associated with the proposed Project, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less-than-Sianificant Impact. Impacts associated with odors generated during the proposed Project's construction and long-term operation would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. Normally, odor impacts that generate complaints are associated with projects that involve agriculture and livestock operations, wastewater treatment, chemical manufacturing, refineries, landfills, and composting facilities. The Project proposes to construct and operate a marine commercial building anticipated to accommodate a 149 restaurant, make improvements to the Balboa Marina to provide a new public transient dock and additional private boat slips, and reconfigure the Balboa Marina parking lot. Such land uses would not normally be considered to create objectionable odors. Nonetheless, provided below is a discussion of potential odor impacts during construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 30) Potential Construction Odor During Project construction, odors associated with diesel exhaust from heavy equipment, dust from earth movement, asphalt paving, and architectural coatings would be temporary, short-term in duration, and would end at the completion of construction. Construction-related odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phases of construction activity. Construction-related odors are common in urban and suburban areas and are not objectionable to a large majority of the population. Additionally, mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules would limit odor emissions from construction vehicles. For these reasons, the short-term and temporary nature of construction odors would be considered a less-than-significant impact. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 30) Potential Operational Odor Odors emitted during proposed Project's operation would be the result of cooking odors from the marine commercial building's restaurant tenant and diesel exhaust from increased boating-related activities at the marina.. The proposed Project's source(s) of odors are not normally associated with nuisance odors and complaints. The closest sensitive receptors would be located approximate 400 to 500 feet west/south west of the site on Linda Isle. Two other restaurants, Sol and 3Thirty3, are operating within 800 to 1,000 feet of the proposed marine commercial building and are situated closer to the potential odor-sensitive receptors that are located on Linda Isle. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not contribute to significant changes in operational odors already present around the Project site. Project-related operational odors would be less than significant. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 30) Air Quality: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.4 Biological Resources a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to the 150 California brown pelican and California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, Fishery Management Species (FMS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFP), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). In the case of these species, impacts would result from temporary construction activities in the water, such as dredging and pile driving. Species are expected to temporarily leave the Project area due to short-term construction-related disturbance and/or irritation. These species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. Due to dredging activities in the water, Project implementation would result in long-term impacts to HAPC and eelgrass for which either mitigation is required or Project design features balance out the loss of habitat in another area, as in the case of eelgrass, or increases to the habitat area, as in the case of HAPC. Under existing conditions, the land-side portion of the Project site is fully developed. The surface of the existing parking lot is largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of ornamental landscaping occurring within and bordering the existing parking lot. The beach is devoid of vegetation with the exception of a transitional slope between the parking lot and the beach that is dominated with non-native vegetation. Plant and wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local, or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and that were identified through field work conducted on the Project site by Coastal Resources Management, Inc. are summarized below. More information is contained in technical report attached as Technical Appendix B to this document. R efer to Appendix B for additional information. ♦ Eelgrass. The Project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered HAPC for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act. HAPC are described in the regulations of EFP as being rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Two small eelgrass beds were mapped within the Project area totaling 515 SF or 12.6 square meters. Of this total, 379.3 SF (73.7%) was mapped at the southern edge of the sandy beach and 135.7 SF (26.3%) was mapped south of this location off of the southerly tip of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 9). Eelgrass would be adversely impacted by the proposed dredging of the shallow water habitat that would result in the loss of 515 SF of eelgrass vegetation (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 27). Proposed docks and floats would shade 9,045 SF of shallow water habitat, but would not adversely affect any additional eelgrass, because all of the eelgrass 151 would be removed during dredging (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 27). Project implementation would result in a long-term, significant impact to eelgrass and mitigation would be required. ♦ Marine Birds, California Brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general Project vicinity. Both species may react to construction disturbances by altering their normal foraging behaviors. No direct mortality of endangered seabirds would result from the dredging or excavation activities in the water-side portion of the Project site (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 30). Turbidity plumes caused by dredging activities may potentially impact California brown pelicans and California least terns by limiting their ability to see their prey and thereby causing them to temporarily move out of the area in search of food. Accordingly, construction activities causing turbidity in the water that could cause turbidity plumes to spread beyond the immediate dredging area would result in a potential short-term impact to the foraging habitat of the California least tern and a potential short- term impact to the foraging and shoreline resting habitat of the California brown pelican. Ocean material is proposed to be dredged over a period of approximately 4 weeks, 5 days per week, which would include mobilization and demobilization of the dredging equipment. The proposed area of dredging is shown in Figure 3-10, Water-Side Dredging Footprint. • California least tern. The State and Federally-listed California least tern does not breed or nest near the Project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. During this period, adults will forage on juvenile baitfish and take their prey back to their fledglings. Least terns forage within several miles of their nesting sites at Bolsa Chica Marsh and Upper Newport Bay. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Road Bridge. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 16) • California brown pelican. The California brown pelican is a federally endangered species but is proposed for delisting by both the federal government and the State of California due to its population resurgence along the California coastline. The California brown pelican is designated as a Fully Protected Species under the Fish and Wildlife Code, and that designation will not change as a result of the delisting. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 16) This species is found in Newport Bay year- round but does not breed locally. The brown pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish and utilizes the shoreline as resting habitat. Brown pelicans do not breed in the Project region and therefore an alteration of their foraging behavior would not affect young-on-the-nest. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 30) ♦ California Halibut and Other Fish. Although the California halibut does not have a formal species status, it is considered asensitive species by resources agencies 152 because of its commercial value and a continued region-wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. Project dredging activity would temporarily degrade soft bottom habitat where this species is present, which would cause individuals to temporarily move to non-impacted areas precluding any direct or indirect adverse impacts. Proposed Project construction activities would not result in the mortality of any individuals. Habitat degradation would result in a short-term less-than-significant impact on halibut. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 30). The proposed Project would have no long-term impact on any California halibut or any other sensitive species of fish and no mitigation is required. ♦ Marine Mammals. The Project's construction activity is expected to result in a sound exposure level that may reach up to 88 decibels (BBA) at 50 feet. Marine mammals have been observed at other construction sites flushing from haul out sites at a sound exposure of less than 100 dBA. Accordingly, it is possible that marine mammals may temporarily modify their behavior as a result of noise produced by water-side construction activities. Sound noise levels are expected to be below that identified as harassment during dredging operations. Sea lion and bottlenose dolphin occurrences in Newport Bay have shown that they have the ability to adapt to noise and vessel traffic (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 37). However, construction activity pile driving in the air and water may result in avoidance behavior by marine mammals. Few, if any, marine mammals would be expected to be present at the construction site. If they are present, they are unlikely to be harmed because they would either move out of range of sound produced by pile driving, or they would adapt to expected sound intensities (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 37). Construction activities would result in the potential short-term displacement of marine mammals and impacts would be less than significant. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 36) The proposed Project would have no long-term impact on marine mammals. ♦ Marine Reptiles. The green turtle and hawksbill occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. However, their occurrence within Newport Bay is rare. Because Newport Bay has a productive eelgrass system, green sea turtles may occasionally utilize the seagrass beds as one source of their nutritional requirements. But if this occurred, it would be a rare occurrence. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 77) No sea turtles were observed in the Project area by CRM biologists during their surveys conducted on June 4 and July 19, 2013, and the potential for sea turtles to be in the Project area is extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 30). The proposed Project would thus have no impact on marine reptiles and no mitigation is required. ♦ Fishery Management Plan (TMP) Species, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). The proposed Project is located within an area designated as EFH for Coastal Pelagics Management and Groundfish Management Plan designated species (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2073, p. 78). EFH is defined by the Magunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 1.53 breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (Magunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 1996). In addition, estuaries are considered HAPC for various federally managed fish species. Coastal pelagic fish inhabit sunlit waters up to about 655 feet deep, typically above the continental shelf. Four (4) costal pelagic species (northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel) potentially occur in the waters offshore of Newport Beach. Six (6) groundfish species also occur, including California scorpion fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 18) The only managed species likely to be present in Newport Bay, however, is the northern anchovy, which is unlikely to be benefitted or adversely affected in this part of Newport Harbor (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, pp. 36-37). Groundfish are likely to be extremely rare or absent in the Project site. However, should they be present, the potential for direct mortality on northern anchovy juveniles or adults is minimal. Increased water turbidity would instead result in the species temporarily avoiding the Project site which is a less-than-significant impact. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 33) Site excavation, pile driving, and dredging activities may result in increased water turbidity. Increased water turbidity may result in 1) the avoidance of juvenile and adult FMP species to the affected turbid waters, 2) an increase in the suspended sediment load in the water column that could introduce contaminants to FMP species, and 3) the clogging of the gill apparatus of filter feeds that would reduce the ability of the fish to breathe and/or feed. Based on the life histories and the distribution of identified FMP species that indicate coastal pelagic and groundfish-managed species occur in very low abundances in Newport Harbor, the potential for long- term adverse impacts on FMP species would be less than significant (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 34)and no mitigation is required. ♦ Noxious algae. Caulerpa algae has a potential to cause ecosystem-level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out-compete other algae and seagrasses and impact fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds dependent on native marine vegetation. Caulerpa algae is not present at the Project site under existing conditions and no component of the Project has a significant potential to increase the probability of coulerpa. However, in the unlikely event that it colonizes the marina, an eradication program would be required to be implemented immediately under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Caulerpa Eradication Protocol. Project-related impacts would be less than significant; nonetheless, mandatory compliance with the Caulerpa algae Eradication Protocol is specified as a mitigation measure herein. b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project Would result in short-term impacts to wetland habitat, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC) in the water-side 154 portion of the Project site. In addition, a long term impact would occur to eelgrass, a HAPC, as a result of dredging activity. No intertidal sandy beach or mudflats would be adversely impacted. Implementation of the Project would create 600 SF of mudflats, resulting in a net increase of soft bottom habitat. Thus, the Project would have a beneficial long-term effect on mudflats and associated resource groups. Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay are considered waters of the state and U.S. These waters contain sensitive habitat, such as eelgrass, that are afforded additional protection by state and federal agencies to conserve and protect biological resources. The Project proposes to construct a new public transient boat dock in Newport Harbor and add additional private boat slips to the existing, private Balboa Marina. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the new boat slips that are proposed. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 SF. Of this, 2,258 SF would be public docks and 6,787 SF would be private docks (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). Thirty-seven (37) piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor to support the new docks. These include eleven (11) 20-inch diameter piles and twenty-six (26) 16-inch diameter piles. The combined bottom surface area for all piles is 54.4 SF. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21) (CAA Planning, 2014) Additionally, the Project would require dredging, using clamshell dredging techniques, of approximately 9,900 CY of sediment over a b ottom surface area of approximately 1.0 acre. Dredging would permanently impact eelgrass habitat, an HAPC, and temporarily reduce benthic (bottom dwelling) invertebrate habitat. Upon completion of the dredging activities, benthic invertebrates would recolonize the shallow subtidal habitat. Therefore, impacts to the shallow subtidal habitat would be a short-term less-than-significant impact, with no long-term reduction in benthic diversity, function or structure. The long-term impact to eelgross would be significant and require mitigation, as discussed in Threshold a), above. Also refer to Threshold a), above, for a discussion of EFH, to which impacts would be temporary and less than significant. In order to accommodate the new public dock and additional private boat slips, a riprap embankment would be constructed approximately 15-feet landward of the existing riprap embankment, along the western edge of the Project site. The relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The loss of 54.4 SF of soft bottom surface area for the piles would be compensated for by the 600 SF mudflat creation area, resulting in a net increase of 545.6 SF of soft surface bottom habitat. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would have a beneficial long-term impact on mudflats and associated resource groups (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 37) In addition, the new docks and piles would result in a net increase in biomass of marine community organisms that live on hard surface (algae, mussels, limpets, chitons, sea squirts, and moss animals). 155 c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, tilling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to waters of the United States as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS). Short-term impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of Project- specific Best Management Practices (BMPs). The proposed Project would result in approximately 9,045 SF of new overwater coverage; however, the proposed Project also includes replacement of the existing riprap embankment that would be reconstructed 15 feet landward of the existing embankment. This replacement would result in removal of existing fill material and an increase of 6,772 SF of waters of the United States, which includes all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The increase in waters of the Unites States is a Project benefit that is considered sufficient mitigation to offset the increase in overwater cover. A jurisdictional delineation of the Project site was conducted by Anchor QEA, L.P., and a copy of the report is contained in Appendix C to this document. The landward extent of potential waters of the United States as defined by the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) were established along the beach area in the northwest corner of the study area.. No USACE jurisdictional wetlands were identified by Anchor QEA biologists and the extent of wetlands as defined by the CCC was limited to the high tide line. The Project proposes to construct a new public transient boat dock in Newport Harbor and add additional private boat slips to the existing, private Balboa Marina. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the total thirty-six (36) new boat slips that are proposed. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 SF, constituting new overwater coverage. However, the proposed Project also includes replacement of the existing riprap embankment that would be reconstructed 15 feet landward of the existing embankment. This replacement would result in removal of existing fill material and an increase of 6,772 SF of waters of the United States, which includes all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The increase in waters of the Unites States is a Project benefit that may be considered sufficient mitigation to offset the increase in overwater cover resulting from construction of the proposed new docks. Specific details of the mitigation program would be determined during the Project's regulatory approval process with the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the CCC (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 11). In summary, construction activities would result in short- term temporary impacts to waters of the United States, but these short-term impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of the Project's riprap embankment replacement. With USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CCC approval, long-term impacts would be less than significant. 1,56 d) Would the Project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpeded the use ofnative wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. Although Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary displacement impacts to the California brown pelican, California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, and Fishery Management Species (FMS), the impacts would be temporary (approximately 4 weeks) and the species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. There would be no substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Project site is not a wildlife nursery, so the Project has no potential to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As discussed above under Threshold a), brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general Project vicinity. Both species may react to construction disturbances by altering their normal foraging behaviors. Turbidity plumes caused by dredging activities over a period of approximately 4 weeks may potentially impact California brown pelicans and California least terns by limiting their ability to see their prey and thereby causing them to temporarily move out of the area in search of food. Similarly, species that inhabit the water would be temporarily disturbed by in-water construction activities. Project dredging activity would temporarily degrade habitat for California halibut and other fish species, as well as marine mammals. The Project's construction activity may cause marine mammals to temporarily modify their behavior as a result of noise produced by water-side construction activities. Sea lion and bottlenose dolphin occurrences in Newport Bay have shown that they have the ability to adapt to noise and vessel traffic (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 31). However, construction activity pile driving in the air and water may result in temporary avoidance behavior by marine mammals. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 36) Although Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary displacement impacts, the impacts would be temporary (approximately 4 weeks) and the species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. Nonetheless, mitigation measures applied herein for temporary impacts to these species and their habitats would also apply to the less-than-significant impacts associated with their movement. e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. City Council Policy G-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not propose the removal of any City trees. The Project would not conflict with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl, although temporary disturbances to waterfowl and marine birds would occur :L57 during the Project's construction process. These temporary impacts would be mitigated to a level below significant. In the long-term, the Project would benefit waterfowl habitat by replacing an existing riprap embankment and reconstructing it 15 feet landward of the existing embankment, as well as by creating 600 SF of new mudflats. Applicable Newport Beach policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources include City Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl). For an analysis of consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, refer to Section 5.4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this document. Council Policy G-1 The City of Newport Beach City Council Policy G-1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, establishes requirements to ensure diversity in tree species and age classes within the City, and requires tree removal or reforestation to be approved by the City to ensure that tree removal requests do not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity, or age of the City's Urban Forest. Implementation of the proposed Project would remove trees in the private Balboa Marina parking lot and plant trees, in the reconfigured parking lot. As shown on Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping pockets would be installed in the reconfigured parking lot. Six (6) Canary Island Date Palms would be planted near the entrance driveway, King Palms would be planted along the primary parking lot drive aisle, two Senegal Date Palms would be planted at the entrance to the new commercial building, and Coral trees would be planted in other planting pockets. No City trees would be removed or planted as part of the Project; therefore, City Council Policy G-1 does not apply. Municipal Code Chapter 7.26 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl, is intended to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns, and pelicans. As stated in Municipal Code Section 7.26.010, Findings, "[tjhe City of Newport Beach finds and declares that: A. The waters of Newport Bay contain important natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns and pelicans. B. The value of this habitat is maximized when the bay and its environs are, to the maximum extent practicable, maintained in a manner that replicates the natural environment. 152 C. Replicating the natural environment means improving water quality, maintaining native grasses and plants, and not supplementing to, nor removing food from, the environment. D. Supplementing certain foods outside of the natural habitat can result in direct harm to waterfowl, including discouraging natural migration, causing avian diseases and limiting the birds' intake of more nutritional natural foods. E, Replicating the natural environment also means not incubating or otherwise intervening in the propagation of waterfowl unless licensed to do so by resources agencies. F. Incidental or de minimus feeding of waterfowl on a sporadic, non-routine basis does not distort or alter migratory patterns or the natural behavior of waterfowl. As discussed above under Threshold a), California Brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general Project vicinity. Other waterfowl and birds likely use the site as well. The Project proposes to construct a new public boat dock in Newport Harbor and add additional private boat slips in the Balboa Marina that would result in temporary impacts in the water. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public 7-ransient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the new boat slips that are proposed. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 SF. The Project also proposes dredging and replacement of the existing riprap embankment by moving it 15 feet landward of the existing embankment, which would create additional water surface. In addition, the relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The increase in water surface and mudflats is a long-term Project benefit to Newport Bay and complies with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.26. During the Project's construction process, however, waterfowl and bird species may react to construction disturbances by temporarily altering their normal behaviors. As discussed under Threshold a), above, turbidity plumes caused by dredging activities may potentially impact California brown pelicans and California least terns by limiting their ability to see their prey and thereby causing them to temporarily move out of the area in search of food. Similar temporary behavior modifications can be expected of other waterfowl and birds as well, resulting in a potential short-term impact. f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not conflict with the Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP/HCP, which is the only Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other 159 approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site. The Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) were completed in 1996, and the City of Newport Beach became a signatory agency in July of 1996. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi-species multi-habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The NCCP/HCP focuses on multiple species and habitats and addresses the conservation of these species in a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange-throated whiptail, in addition to 26 other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP/HCP. An additional ten species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as if they were listed according to FESA Section 10(a) are addressed within the NCCP/HCP. According to Figure 11 of the NCCP/HCP, Preliminary Reserve Concept, the Project site and surrounding areas are not targeted for conservation as part of the NCCP/HCP (Orange County, 1996, Figure 11). Therefore, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with any of the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. No impact would occur. Biological Resources: Mitigation Measures MM BR-1 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that all required permits and clearances regarding biological resources have been obtained from the regulatory and resource agencies. MM BR-2 The Project Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days prior to dredging and a post-construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days after project construction is complete. Said surveys shall be consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol. If this species is found, protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa taxifolia shall be implemented to remove this species from the Project site. MM BR-3 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, an eelgrass mitigation plan shall be prepared requiring a minimum 1 .2:1 mitigation ratio for eelgrass impacts pursuant to the provisions of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). At least 618 SF (57.4 square meters) of eelgrass shall be successfully transplanted at the end of a five- year post-transplant monitoring period. The location of the transplant area shall be the Balboa Eelgross Mitigation Area which was established during the reconstruction of the Balboa Marina in 2008-2009 or as determined by the resource agencies. MM BR-4 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall ensure that dredging and excavation operations are surrounded with 100 a silt curtain to reduce the level of turbidity. The curtain shall be maintained in good condition throughout the dredging and excavation process. MM BR-5 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall ensure that a qualified biological monitor is retained to monitor turbidity and effects on marine mammals during pile driving operations. Said monitor shall comply with standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for water quality protection and applicable requirements for protection of marine mammals. MM BR-6 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: Construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with applicable requirements of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act overseen by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Contracts shall include a provision that in the unlikely event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the contractor shall immediately contact the NMFS Southwest Regional Office's Standing Coordinator, submit a report to the NMFS Regional Office and comply with all associated and feasible directives. COA: Pile driving shall be conditioned to require employment of a "soft- start" approach to lessen the potential for short-term construction impacts to marine mammals. This approach requires slowly ramping up pile driving activities at the start of the day and at restarting after breaks or any interruption longer than 15 minutes. An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act shall be required if the "soft-start" approach is not employed. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BR-lthrough MM BR-6 would reduce the Project's impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. 5.4.5 Cultural Resources a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Finding: No Impact. No significant historical resources are located on the Project site and no significant historical resources would be impacted by the construction or operation of the proposed Project. Although the existing building located at 201 East Pacific Coast Highway would be demolished, the structure is not a significant historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 101 Prior to approximately 1947, the land-side portion of subject property was an undeveloped lot. In approximately 1947, the property began to be utilized as a marina. In approximately 1953, the current on-site commercial building was constructed and the property began functioning as the Balboa Marina. Part of the water-side portion of the site was occupied for approximately 40 years by a floating vessel that housed the Ruben E. Lee Riverboat restaurant and later by the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, but the vessel was dismantled and removed from the site in 2008. In 2009, the aging marina was renovated and the current boat docks, slips, and gangways were constructed on the water-side portion of the site. CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) defines a significant historical resource as the following: 1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. 2. A resource included in a I ocal register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements [of] section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. 3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. The City's General Plan EIR Figure 4.4-1 shows the location of recognized historical resources in Newport Beach, none of which occur on the Project site (City of Newport Beach, 2006b). Under existing conditions, the land-side development area is occupied by a paved parking lot and a 1,200 SF commercial building located at 201 East Pacific Coast Highway that was constructed in approximately 1953. The building houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The building is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) and is not eligible for listing. Pursuant to the criteria used by the California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), the existing structure is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources because: 1) it is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history; 2) it is not associated with the lives of persons important to California history; 3) it does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction ; and 4) it has not yielded, nor does it have the potential to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The existing structure also is not included in any local register of historical resources, nor is it identified as significant in any historical resource surveys (City of Newport Beach, 2006b). Moreover, the existing structure is not historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California; rather, the structure exhibits a relatively modern architectural style and exhibits no unique architectural characteristics. There are no other structures or resources located within the Project site's boundary that could be considered a significant historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 102 §15064.5(a). Based on the foregoing analysis, the existing structure and features on the Project site are not historical resources. Thus, the proposed Project would not impact historical resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§ 75064.5? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Although unlikely, there is a remote possibility that archaeological resources could be encountered during grading of native soils in the land-side portion of the Project site. Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources, if unearthed during construction activities, are reduced to a level below significance. The City of Newport Beach is known to have been occupied by Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro-Americans. The City's General Plan EIR notes that archaeological materials associated with Native American occupation may be located beneath the ground surface and have the potential to be discovered, particularly in areas that have not been previously developed with urban uses (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.4-15). The land-side portion of the Project site is fully developed with recreation commercial uses, including a paved parking lot and one commercial building. The water-side portion of the Project site is located in Newport Harbor and the Lower Newport Bay channel, which have been subjected to water- bottom dredging on numerous occasions. Thus, both the land and water-bottom surfaces of the Project site are developed and disturbed. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach has no record of reported archaeological resource discoveries associated with the Project site (City of Newport Beach, 2007). Construction of the proposed Project would involve dredging in the water-side portion of the site and ground disturbance in the land-side portion of the site. In the water-side portion, dredging would involve removal of bayfloor sediments by a clam shell dredge to a depth of 10 feet Mean Low Lower Water (MLLW) (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 26). Due to the dynamic nature of the water bottom and prior dredging activities in Newport Harbor and Lower Newport Bay, there is little to no potential that archaeological resources have the potential to be discovered in the dredged material. As part of the Project's construction process in the land-side portion, some portions of the property would receive fill material and other portions of the property would be excavated. According to the proposed Project's grading plans, the maximum depth of land-side excavation would extend to approximately 3.6 feet (Stantec, 2014). Additionally, Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (GPI), states in a geotechnical report prepared for the Project's proposed, new restaurant building, that excavations to maximum depths of approximately 6.0 feet would be required to accommodate over- excavations for the restaurant building. These over-excavations would be required to remove highly compressible organic clays, excavate for footings, and trench for utility lines (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 8). Based on soil boring samples tested by GPI in 2013, the subsurface of the land-side portion of the Project site consists mostly of 163 fine to medium sands with variable silt content, which are medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater depths. The subsurface also contains compressible organic clay with peat, elastic silt, and sand. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3). Because some of the soil to be excavated is native and has not been previously disturbed, there is a r emote possibility that archaeological resources could be encountered during excavation activities. If significant archaeological resources are unearthed, they could be significantly impacted if not appropriately treated. This is a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required. c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: No Impact. No paleontological resources are known to occur beneath the surface of the Project site or have the potential to be discovered during Project construction activities. Accordingly, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Areas within the City and its sphere of influence (SOI) that are known to have a high likelihood of containing fossils, include portions of the Vasqueros foundation that underlie the Newport Coast, the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and the Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.4-17). The Project site is not located in any of these areas. Construction of the proposed Project would involve dredging in the water-side portion of the site and ground disturbance in the land-side portion of the site. There is no potential for paleontological resources to be discovered during the Project's construction process because no fossil-bearing soils or rock formations are proposed to be disturbed or excavated. In the water-side portion of the site, dredging of sand material would occur to a depth of 10 feet Mean Low Lower Water (MLLW) (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 26). Sand is not a fossil-bearing soil. In the land-side portion, some portions of the property would receive fill material and other portions of the property would be excavated to maximum depths of approximately 6.0 feet. Based on soil boring samples tested by GPI in 2013, the subsurface of the land-side portion of the Project site consists mostly of fine to medium sands with variable silt content, along with some minor amounts of compressible organic clay with peat and elastic silt. These are not fossil-bearing soils. Excavations to maximum depths of 6.0 feet as proposed by the Project would not encounter fossil-bearing soils or rock formations. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: No Impact. No human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries are present on the Project site or known to be present 104 beneath the surface of the site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Under existing conditions, the water-side portion of the site consists of water surface and boat docks, slips, and gangways. The land-side portion of the site is occupied by a paved parking lot and a 1,200 SF commercial building. The Project site is not known to have ever been used as a cemetery and the possibility of uncovering human remains during Project-related dredging and grading activities is very remote. Regardless, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Mandatory compliance with these policies would ensure that potential impacts associated with the discovery of human remains would be less than significant. Cultural Resources: Mitigation Measures Mitigation for potential impacts to archaeological resources is as follows: MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan(s). "If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall temporarily halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find until a qualified archaeologist can be called to the site to assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Newport Beach." The grading contractor shall be responsible for complying with the note. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) criteria for cultural significance, construction shall be permitted to proceed. However, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the City of Newport Beach shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City, which may include the implementation of a Phase II and/or III archaeological investigation per City guidelines. All significant cultural resources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the California Historical Resources Information 1615 System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The archaeologist shall incorporate analysis and interpretation of any significant find(s) into a final Phase IV report that identifies the level of significance pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2(G). The City and Project Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that resources are recovered. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 would reduce the Project's potential impacts to archaeological resources to below a level of significance. 5.4.6 Geology and Solis a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. With mandatory compliance to the California Building Code and recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation, the proposed Project would not significantly expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a) i). Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault There are no known faults on the Project site and the Project site is not located within an Alquist-P(olo earthquake fault zone. As such, there is no potential for ground rupture at the site, a) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking Southern California is a seismically active area and properties in the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity. Faults zones in the regional vicinity (as shown on General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-1, Regional Faults (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.5- 100 1)) with the potential to cause moderate ground shaking in the City of Newport Beach include the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, the San Joaquin fault zone, and the Elysian fault zone. On the water-side portion of the Project site, a new public boat dock would be constructed and additional boat slips would be added to the private Balboa Marina. Thirty-seven (37) piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor to support the new gangways. These include eleven (11) 20-inch diameter piles and twenty-six (26) 16-inch diameter piles, which would secure the docks and prevent significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic shaking. The marine commercial building that would be constructed on the land-side portion of Project site would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 13 for the construction of new buildings/and or structures. Approximately 235 auger cast pressure grouted piles are proposed to support the marine commercial building. A site-specific analysis, based on CBC requirements, was conducted as part of the Project's geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (GPI) and is attached to this document as Appendix G. The geotechnical investigation sets forth site-specific recommendations to attenuate seismic hazards at the land-side portion of the Project site in accordance with the CBC requirements and standards. Compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation would be assured through future City review of grading and building permits for the land-side portion of the Project, which would assure that effects from strong seismic ground shaking are attenuated. The proposed building would be supported on auger-cast grouted piles in order to minimize surcharge loads on the existing seawall. As such, impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. a) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction The subsurface soil profile on the land-side portion of the Project site consists of mostly fine grain to medium sands with variable silt content, along with some minor amounts of compressible organic clay with peat and elastic silt. These sands are typically medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater lengths. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3) In the water-side portion of the Project site, soils on the water bottom consist of sand. The Project site is located within a 1 iquefaction hazards zone as mapped by the California Geological Survey (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 4). In addition, as shown on General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2, Seismic Hazards (City of Newport Beach, 2006b,Figure 4.5-2), the Project area is identified as an area with liquefaction potential. Based on the CBC, which is based on the ASCE 7.10 Standard, the peak ground acceleration for the Project site, derived from the USGS Design Maps website, is 0.71g. Analysis performed by GPI indicates that most sandy soils at the Project site are dense enough to resist liquefaction even under high ground motion. In addition, marginal resistance to liquefaction was indicated in limited relatively thin layers of medium dense sands found mostly at shallow depths (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 4). GPI calculated the magnitude of seismic settlement under high levels of ground motion to be relatively small and concluded that the potential for liquefaction would result in a 10 temporary loss of strength in limited layers, which in turn would result in some permanent slope movement in the western portions of the Project site. None of these layers evaluated by GPI contained very loose to loose sands that would be susceptible to flows upon liquefaction. GPI analyses indicated lateral spreading potential less than 5 inches for a peak ground acceleration of 0,71g. Thus, GPI concluded the potential for lateral spreading due to liquefaction is considered to be negligible. As stated in a) i and ii) above, the marine commercial building proposed to be constructed on the Project site would be required to comply with the building design standards of CBC Chapter 13 for the construction of new buildings/and or structures. With compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation (refer to Appendix G), which would be assured through future City review of building and grading permits, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. a)iv) Landslides Under existing conditions, the land-side portion of the Project site is a paved parking lot with a concrete seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west site. An approximately 3 to 4 foot change in elevation separates the beach from the parking lot. The proposed marine commercial building would be supported on pile foundations in order to limit surcharge loads on the existing seawall. Approximately 235 auger-cast pressure grouted piles would support the marine commercial building. As stated in a) i and ii) above, the building proposed to be constructed on the Project site would be required to comply with the building design standards of the CBC Chapter 13 for the construction of new buildings/and or structures. Compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation (refer to Appendix G), would be assured through future City review of grading and building permits, which would assure that effects from landslides are attenuated. As such, impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. b) Would the Project result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Under existing conditions, the land-side portion of the Project site consists of 85% impervious conditions containing a 1,200 SF building and a paved parking lot with a concrete seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west side. Under existing conditions, storm water runoff generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water-side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. The subsurface soil profile consists mostly of fine to medium sands with variable silt content. These sands are typically medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater lengths. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3) The land-side portion of the site is developed with a building and parking lot with established landscaping and does 102 not contain exposed topsoil. Therefore, little to no erosion occurs under existing conditions with the exception of limited natural erosion at the beach area located between the land-side and water-side portions of the Project site around the rip-rap embankment beyond the western boundary of the existing parking lot. Proposed demolition and grading activities associated with the Project's construction would temporarily expose soils underlying the land-side portion of the Project site to water and air which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds when erodible materials are exposed to wind and water. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Joint Project Applicants are required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Additionally, during grading and other construction activities involving soil exposure or the transport of earth materials, Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code) of the City of Newport Beach would apply to the Project, which establishes requirements for the control of dust and erosion during construction (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 15.10). As part of the requirements of Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code), the Project Applicant would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that would address construction fencing, sand bags, and other erosion-control features that would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce the site's potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Requirements for the reduction of particulate matter in the air also would apply, pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Mandatory compliance to the Project's NPDES permit and these regulatory requirements would ensure that water and wind erosion impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Upon Project completion, land-side areas that were disturbed during construction activities would be covered with impervious surfaces or landscaped. Thus, wind and water erosion would be minimized as occurs under existing conditions. The potential for erosion effects to occur during Project operation would be the result of indirect effects from storm water discharges from the property. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction (as it does under existing conditions) and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New on-site drains would be constructed to direct low-flow and first-flush runoff to proposed BMPs prior to discharging off-site through the existing bulkhead outlets. Because the proposed Project would not increase the volume or velocity of water discharged from the Project site into Newport Bay, no increased erosion effects would occur. As concluded in the Project- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) included as Appendix / to this document, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, more water would soak into the ground and the Project would reduce the runoff rate as compared to the existing condition, which would reduce any siltation or erosion effects associated with water discharge. 169 The Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and WQMP. The WQMP has been prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and is attached as Appendix / to this document. Appendix / is consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Collectively, the WQMP and SWPPP are required to identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. Adherence to the requirements in the Project's required WQMP and site- specific SWPPP would further ensure that potential erosion and sedimentation effects would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. No mitigation is required. On the water-side portion of the Project site, tidal currents in the Project vicinity are ebb dominant, meaning the ebb currents are higher than the flood currents. According to analysis conducted by Everest International Consultants, Inc., overall tidal currents in the Project area are small under existing and proposed conditions and thus unlikely to cause any erosion. The impact of the proposed water-side development to tidal and flood velocities would be localized, limited to within a few hundred feet downstream of the East Coast Highway bridge along the main channel and beneath the bridge (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, p. 60) Erosion impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. With mandatory compliance with the CBC requirements and the recommendations of the Project-specific geotechnical investigation, the proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable that would potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Potential landslide, lateral spreading, and liquefaction hazards are addressed above under the discussion and analysis of Thresholds a) and b). As discussed under Thresholds a) and b), with mandatory compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation for the land-side portion of the Project site, impacts due to landslides, lateral spreading, and liquefaction would less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project-specific geotechnical investigation (refer to Appendix G) disclosed the presence of two highly compressible cohesive soil layers in the eastern portion of the Project site. The compressibility of these layers found below depths of 5 feet and 29 feet, 1-70 respectively, would mainly impact the support of the retaining wall and fill planned east of the proposed marine commercial building. Up to approximately 3.5 inches of settlement is expected under the weight of 10 feet of fill. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 6) The Project-specific geotechnical investigation recommends Project design features to attenuate settlement. Following these recommendations, the building is proposed to be supported on pile foundations in order to limit surcharge loads on the existing seawall. Approximately 235 auger-cast pressure grouted piles would support the marine commercial building. With compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site- specific geotechnical investigation, which would be assured through future City review of building and grading permits, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 78- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (7994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not be located on an expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) an no associated, substantial risks to life or property would occur. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The majority of the soils identified on the Project site by GPI are non-expansive sands. Such soils are suitable for re-use in fills. Clayely soils, identified by GPI in a limited thin layer below 5 feet, could be used in deep fills provided they are thoroughly blended with the non-expansive sands. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 9) Because the surficial soils exhibit a low potential for potential for expansion, no special reinforcement is necessary to resist expansive forces. However, nominal reinforcement, as a minimum is recommended (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 18). The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and would, therefore, not create associated substantial risks to life or property. Thus, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No Impact. The land-side portion of the Project site would not require the use of septic tanks. The marine commercial building would be connected to the domestic sewer system. Vessel pump out accommodation is proposed for the additional private boat slips, which is not reliant on soils. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.5-1). The marine commercial building would be connected to the domestic sewer system. On the water-side portion of the Project site, vessel pump-out accommodation would be provided for the new private boat slips similar to the system 171 constructed at the existing private Balboa Marina. The pump-out system is not reliant on soils. Accordingly, the Project would not require the use of septic tanks or any other alternative waste water disposal system dependent on soils. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Geology and Soils: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to geology and soil conditions. With mandatory compliance with CBC requirements, the recommendations of the Project-specific geotechnical investigation, and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code requirements, no mitigation is required. 5.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either direct/y or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would result in GHG emissions that are below the City of Newport Beach's screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Based on the City's interim threshold of significance for the evaluation of GHG emissions, the Project's emissions of GHGs would be less-than-significant and mitigation is not required. The greenhouse gas effect is a natural process in which energy is trapped in the earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) essentially act as a blanket causing a warming of the earth. The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth; however excessive heat captured as a result of a buildup of GHGs may result in changes in the earth's climate, which ultimately could affect human health and ecosystems. (KPC EHS, 2014, p• 7) GHGs are the six gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), per fluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are expressed in metric tons (MT) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). CO2e is calculated by the various individual GHGs and multiplying by their global warming potential (GWP). The global warming potential is a ratio of a gas' atmospheric heat trapping characteristics as compared to CO2, which is represented by a GWP of 1. The CO2e estimated value is calculated as part of the CalEEMod program data output, as developed by the SCAQMD. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) The GHGs associated with projects similar to the proposed Project include CO2, CH4, and N2O, which are emitted as a result of internal combustion sources and activities. The other gases listed as part of the overall GHG makeup generally are related to industrial activities and would not be produced in measurable quantities by the Project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) 172 Local GHG Regulations In 2008, the SCAQMD provided guidance to lead agencies on the determination of significance of GHG project emissions. As part of the process, the SCAQMD assembled a GHG Significance Threshold Working Group with the goal to develop and reach a consensus on acceptable significance thresholds to be used in CEQA analyses. The Working Group developed and presented significance threshold for various project types (e.g.: residential, industrial, and commercial); however, at the current time, the only threshold approved by the SCAQMD Board is for industrial projects stationary source emissions with a significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year applied to projects for which the SCAQMD serves as the CEQA lead agency. The SCAQMD is considering a tiered approach in determining the significance of residential and commercial projects as indicated in draft guidance issued by the SCAQMD 2012 which includes: (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 9) • Tier 1: If the project is exempt under existing statutory or categorical exemptions there is a presumption of "less-than-significant" impacts with respect to climate change. • Tier 2: If the project's GHG emissions are within the GHG budgets in an approved regional plan (plans consistent with CEQA sections 15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(s)), there is a presumption of "less-than-significant" impacts with respect to climate change. • Tier 3: Is the project's incremental increase in GHG emissions below or mitigated to less than the significance screening level (10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects stationary source emissions; 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential projects, commercial projects, and mixed-use or other land use projects)? If yes, there is a presumption of "less-than-significant" impacts with respect to climate change. • Tier 4: Does the project meet one of the following performance standards? If yes, there is a presumption of "less-than-significant" impacts with respect to climate change. o Option 1: Achieve some percentage reduction of GHG emissions from a base case scenario, including land use sector reductions from AB32 (e.g., 28% reduction as currently recommended). o Option 2: For individual projects, achieve a project-level efficiency target of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population by 2020 or a target of 3.0 MTCO2e per service population by 2035. For plans, achieve a plan- level efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population by 2020. • Tier 5: Projects should obtain GHG emissions offsets to reduce significant impacts. Offsets in combination with any mitigation measures should achieve the target thresholds for any of the above Tiers. Otherwise, project impacts would remain significant. 173 With the exception of the Industrial Stationary Source threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year, the SCAQMD has not finalized or presented the final version of the threshold guidelines to the SCAQMD Governing Board. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 9) Nonetheless, the analysis herein relies on the SCAQMD's Interim Threshold wherein if Project-related emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year, then Project-specific GHG emissions would be potentially significant and require further study according to Tier 4, above . The screening threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Projects that exceed the screening threshold would require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance. The City of Newport Beach relies upon the SCAQMD draft screening level threshold; therefore, for purposes of analysis herein, the proposed Project may have a significant adverse impact on GHG emissions if it would generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold. Based on the modeling assumptions described under the topic of Air Quality in Section 5.4.3 of this document, and using the SCAQMD's proposed Tier 3 option for determining the significance of a project's GHG impacts, Table 5-6, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the Project's projected unmitigated GHG emissions. The emissions presented in Table 5-6 include emissions from construction activities, amortized over a 30-year period per SCAQMD recommendation, as well as operational and area source emissions. As shown, the proposed Project would produce approximately 1,402.00 MTCO2e/year from operational, area, and amortized construction GHG emissions. The proposed Project's estimated GHG emissions of 1,402.00 MTCO2e/year would be less than the SCAQMD's interim threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact due to GHG emissions. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 29) Mitigation is not required. Table 5-6 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG Emissions MT/ r. Source N20 Total CO2 CH4 cote Mobile Sources 0.000 901.4828 0,0379 902.2795 Area 0.000 0.0528 0.00001 0.00559 Energy 0.00619 439.1639 0.0141 441.3775 Solid Waste 0.000 3.3778 0.1996 7.5698 Water/Wastewater 0.00426 23.0104 0.1728 27.9596 30-year Amortized Construction 22.81 GHG TOTAL 1,402.00 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold? NO (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 7-1) b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG 1,74 emissions; accordingly, no impact due to a conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would occur. Mitigation is not required. Presently there are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed Project regarding the reduction of GHG emissions (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7). The following discussion is a brief summary of the State of California and City of Newport Beach regulatory setting regarding GHGs. ♦ Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) In the State of California Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the state legislature in August of 2006. AB32 requires that levels of GHG be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by 80 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2050. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) Under the requirements of AB32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, which established the emissions limits for the year 2020. The 2020 emission limit was established at 427 million MTCO2e. The inventory breakdown of GHG sources for 1990 i ndicated transportation accounted for 35%; industrial emissions, 24%; imported electricity generation, 14%; local electricity generation, 11%; residential usage, 7%; agriculture, 5%; commercial usage, 3%; and forestry emissions, 1%. Reducing GHG's to 427 MTCO2e would require a reduction of approximately 173 MTCO2e. Compliance with AB32 does not require that each individual sector meet or lower their 1990 GHG inventory percentage; the law instead requires the total inventory be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. (KPC EHS, 2014, pp. 7-8) As part of the requirements of AB32, in December of 2008 CARB adopted an initial scoping plan that included recommendations to reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020 through the use of green building policies, recycling, solid waste reduction, and a cap- and-trade program. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 8) ♦ Senate Bill 97(SB97) In order to address GHG emissions and comply with AB32 in General Plans and CEQA documents, Senate Bill 97 (SB97) required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for CEQA compliance on how to address GHG emissions along with measures to reduce project GHG emissions. Regulations that have been adopted by California to address GHG emissions include the following: (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 8) • Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. 1715 • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Threshold a), above, the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions below the SCAQMD's screening threshold and the interim significance thresholds established by the City of Newport Beach for evaluating the significance of a project's GHG emissions. Additionally, activities associated with the Project would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and regional requirements adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including, but not limited to: AB 32; SB 375; AB 1493; Titles 17, 20, and 24 of the California Code of Regulations; AB 1881; SB 1368; SB 1078; and the applicable policies of the City's General Plan that reduce GHG emissions. There are no other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are applicable to the Project area; therefore, the proposed Project would have no potential to conflict with such plans, policies, or regulations. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts due to GHG emissions; therefore, mitigation measures would not be required. 5.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the Project Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release ofhazardous materials into the environment? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the findings of Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), although Underground Storage Tanks (UST) were not identified on the land-side portion of the property, no tank removal permits were located in building records. Accordingly, the potential exists that USTs may be uncovered during grading activities. In addition, the existing building on the property that would be demolished may contain friable asbestos materials and 170 materials coated with lead-based paint, both of which have the potential to expose construction workers and/or nearby sensitive receptors to health risks during demolition activities. Asbestos-containing materials and materials containing lead-based paints have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, there is an empty vault on the southwest corner of the land-side portion of the property, previously used to house an electrical transformer that may contain Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. The analysis herein is based on a Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by the firm Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC). The reports are attached as Appendix H to this document. Refer to Appendix H for additional information. The Project site is listed in the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) and California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS) environmental databases for a minor oil release for a boat overflow, two minor diesel spills from vessel bilge pumps, and the washing of paint waste into Newport Harbor. These listings do not represent a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) or a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) for the property because events were in reference to releases into the water and have since dissipated. (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014b, p. 1) No off-site environmental conditions were identified by EEC that represent a REC, a controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC), vapor encroachment condition (VEC), or a HREC within 0.5 mile of the property (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014b, p. 2). During a search of building records conducted by EEC during their Phase I ESA, building records included applications dating 1956 and 1957, for the installation of one 1,500 gallon fuel UST and one 4,000 gallon UST. EEC did not locate any tank removal permits for the property. According to a map included with building records, the specific location of the USTs could not be determined. In addition, no visual evidence of USTs was identified by EEC at the Project site during the Phase I ESA. (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014b, p. 5) The potential presence of fuel USTs represents a REC for the property. In addition to the potential presence of USTs on the land-side portion of the Project site, documentation provided to EEC from the current property owner indicated that a petroleum odor was identified in soil during previous investigation activities. The potential of petroleum in soil also represents a REC for the property. The Phase II ESA also performed by EEC included a geophysical survey to determine if any subsurface features such as USTs or pipelines remain on the property. Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, no petroleum odors were observed in any of the soil cuttings derived from hand auger borings. Depth to groundwater in the borings ranged from approximately 8 feet to 9.6 feet below ground surface. EEC analyses confirmed that the two potential REC's identified on the property had not impacted the soils and/or groundwater conditions beneath the property. Although the soil and groundwater beneath the property was not impacted, the potential still exists that USTs 177 may be uncovered during grading activities. Accordingly, grading activities may result in a potentially significant hazard to construction workers if an UST is discovered; therefore, mitigation is required. EEC did not observe any hazardous materials being used at the Project site under existing conditions. However, EEC was not able to inspect the interior of the existing building on the property scheduled to be demolished as part of the proposed Project. Due to the date of the building construction (1953), there is a potential for Asbestos- containing Material (ACM) to exist inside the building (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014a, p. 7). Accordingly, during demolition of the building, there is a potential that construction workers could be exposed to friable asbestos materials, which are known to cause human health problems, including cancer. ACMs also have the potential to become airborne during demolition activities, potentially affecting nearby sensitive receptors. The demolition of structures containing ACMs is regulated by Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 1403, which identifies requirements that must be adhered to during demolition of buildings containing ACMs. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that Project demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. Because the Project would be required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to asbestos would be less than significant. Mitigation is provided below to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of Rule 1403. Due to the date of the building (1953) there also is a potential that lead-based paint (LBP) exists on the property. Accordingly, there is a potential to expose construction workers to health hazards associated with lead during demolition activities. The Project would be required to comply with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. In addition, there are standard work practices required such as the use of wet methods and HEPA vacuums. Mandatory compliance with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8 would ensure that construction workers are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards during demolition, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Although compliance with these provisions is mandatory, mitigation is provided herein to ensure Project compliance with the CCR requirements for LBPs. EEC observed an empty vault on the southwest corner of the land-side portion of the Project site. According to site representatives interviewed by EEC, the vault was previously used to house an electrical transformer (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014a, p. 6). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were historically used in electrical transformers, hydraulic fluids, and electrical equipment. PCB's are carcinogenic substances, and their use has been prohibited in most products since 1978. No date of construction of the vault was noted or discovered. During removal of this vault, there is a potential that construction workers could be exposed to PCBs. In California, the U.S. EPA enforces the federal regulations for PCB disposal and storage, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers and enforces the state's additional requirements for PCB hazardous waste. Mandatory compliance with Title 40 of the US. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) would ensure 178 that property procedures are followed so that construction workers are not exposed to significant health hazards associated with potential PCBs. As such, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Although compliance with 40 CFR is mandatory, mitigation is provided below to ensure Project compliance with SFR 40 requirements for PCBs, should they be present on an electrical transformer that would be removed as part of the proposed Project's construction process. Heavy equipment would be used during construction on the land-side and water-side portions of the Project site. Equipment would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the land-side portion of the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site, and such impacts would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are provided herein to further reduce the potential for environmental hazards to Newport Bay as a result of potential releases of hazardous materials associated with their routine transport and use and possible accidental upset. Construction work in the water-side area of the Project site would require dredging of approximately 9,900 CY of sediment, as well as the removal of 1,300 CY of upland soils (material from above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (NewFields, 2014, p. 1). According to the results of a Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report prepared by the firm NewFields, LLC and attached as Appendix F to this document, marine sediments beyond the current riprap line and cement revetment are suitable for ocean disposal and are not considered hazardous material. (NewFields, 2014, p. ii) Upland soils would be disposed as construction fill on-site. Dredged sediment would be transported by barge for ocean disposal at site LA-3, which is a U.S. EPA-approved location for the disposal of ocean-dredged material off the coast of Newport Beach. The U.S. EPA has the authority to designate ocean dredge material disposal sites under Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (33USC 1401 et seq.). LA-3 was approved as a permanent disposal site by the U.S. EPA in 2005, in accordance with Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 175, dated September 12, 2005. LA-3 is approved to accept a maximum annual dredged material disposal quantity of 2,500,000 cubic yards of dredged material originating from the Los Angeles and Orange County region. Dredging activities would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required for hazardous materials associated with the dredging operation, During Project operation, an additional 36 boat slips would be located in Newport Harbor. Boating activities occur under existing conditions and the addition of boat slips would not result in any new hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with boating. Impacts 2 l would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Refer to MM BR-9 in Section 5,4.4, Biological Resources, of this document, which requires the preparation and ongoing implementation of a Marina Management Plan for the Balboa Marina. The Management Plan would include reasonable BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. The marina operator will be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: No Impact. The nearest school is located approximately 1.0 mile from the Project site. The proposed Project would therefore have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the Project site is Horace Ensign Intermediate School located approximately 1.0 mile northwest of the Project site. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No Impact. The Project is not included on a I ist of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to the analysis of the Project-site's Phase I and Phase 11 ESAs (refer to Appendix M, the Project site is not identified on a I ist of hazardous material sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Accordingly, the 120 Project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The nearest airport to the Project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the Project site is not located within the Airport Planning Area or the Airport Impact Zones, the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, or the Airport Safety Zones (OCALUC, 2008, Figure 1). The Project site does, however, occur within the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77. (OCALUC, 2008) The Project's proposed marine commercial building would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach non-residential shoreline height limit, so the building height with a flat roof may be constructed to a maximum 35 feet, or 40 feet with a sloped roof, with approval of a future Site Development Review application by the City of Newport Beach. The building height would not result in airport safety impacts. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, the Project would not result in an airstrip safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. There are no private airstrips within the Project vicinity. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan (EMP) provides guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations in both war and peacetime. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.6-29) The EMP identifies tsunami evacuation routes, tsunami inundation zones, tsunami evacuation sites, and response plans, and utilizes an outdoor emergency siren system to provide people with advance warnings of potential tsunami emergencies. According to the City of Newport Beach EMP, the Project site is located within a Tsunami Inundation Evacuation Zone 121 (City of Newport Beach, p. 100) The EMP does not identify the Project site as being part of an emergency evacuation route. Although adjacent roadway segments are not identified as part of an emergency evacuation route, no full or partial temporary lane closures would occur along East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive during Project construction thereby leaving existing roadway segments fully operational in the occurrence of the enactment of the City of Newport Beach emergency evacuation procedures. The Project's AIC application was reviewed by the City of Newport Beach, which determined that reconfiguration of the Balboa Marina parking lot as proposed accommodates appropriate emergency access. The Project's future SDR application also would be subject to City review for the provision of adequate emergency access. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk or toss, injury or death involving Midland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, the Project site is not located within a fire susceptibility area (City of Newport Beach, 2006, Figure S4). In addition, the Project site is located within and is surrounded by urban built up land. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Mitiaation Measures Mitigation for hazards associated with the potential presence of hazardous materials that would be removed from the property is as follows: MM HM-1 During Project grading and construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that possible locations where the USTs may have been located, either near the existing building or along the western side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land-side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks removals. 122 MM HM-2 The following Condition of Approval shall be placed on the Project's demolition permits. COA: All demolition permits shall comply with: a) SCAQMD Rule 1403 with respect to asbestos containing materials. b) Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which addresses the removal of components painted with lead-based paint (LBP). c) Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) regarding the removal and disposal of PCBs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HM-1 and MM HM-2 would reduce the Project's potential hazardous materials impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality a) would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would not violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As stated in Table 3-1, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, the Project would require several federal, State of California, and regional agency approvals that have associated water quality standard requirements. These include but are not limited to a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Wafer Quality Certification, and a Section 402 NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. In addition, because the wafer-side portion of the Project would involve construction within public waterways, including dredging activities, the Project would also be required to consult with the U.S. EPA regarding suitability of the dredged material management team (DMMT) approval process. With compliance of the required permits, approvals, and consultation, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. In addition, the Project would implement design features and mitigation measures for other environmental topic areas that would further reduce potential impacts to water quality and violations of standards and potential waste discharge requirements. Less- than-significant impacts would occur and mitigation is not required. b) would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses orplanned uses for which permits have been granted)? 183 Finding: No Impact. The Project site is not located within the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In addition, the groundwater table beneath the land-side portion of the property is shallow and fluctuates with tide levels. There is no potential for groundwater impacts on the water-side portion of the Project site. On the land-side portion, pervious surface area would increase, resulting in more water infiltration and a nominal positive effect on ground water levels. There is no potential for the Project to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to General Plan EIR Figure 4.7-1, Water Resources, the Project site is not located within the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.7-1). Therefore, the Project has no potential to interfere substantially with the volume of the regional aquifer. Because the Project site is located adjacent to and within the Lower Newport Bay, the groundwater table is shallow. Groundwater was encountered on the Project site at depths of approximately 6.5 feet below ground surface, corresponding to an elevation of +3.5 feet MLLW. Due to the proximity of the site to open water, groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with tide levels. During high tide events, the groundwater level could rise to an elevation higher than six feet. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3) In addition, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres), thereby increasing the amount of percolation of on-site surface flows into the ground. Thus, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project substantlaily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project site's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Hydrology at the Project site is influenced primarily by precipitation, landscape irrigation, and subject to regular tidal inundation (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 3). Under existing conditions, storm water runoff from the land-side portion of the Project site generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water-side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly 124 direction, and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New on-site area drains are proposed to be constructed to direct low-flow and first-flush runoff to the proposed BMPs prior to discharging off-site through the existing bulkhead outlets. (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, p. 8) The Project's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. The proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate of volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff discharged. Additionally, as discussed below under Threshold f), the Project would implement BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs that would filter sediments from surface runoff and also promote surface runoff percolation. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. On the water-side portion of the Project site, tidal currents in the Project vicinity are ebb dominant, meaning the ebb currents are higher than the flood currents. According to analysis conducted by Everest International Consultants, Inc., overall tidal currents in the Project area are small under existing and proposed conditions. The impact of the proposed water-side development to tidal and flood velocities would be localized, limited to within a few hundred feet downstream of the East Coast Highway bridge along the main channel and beneath the bridge (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, p. 60). No alteration of the tidal currents in Newport Bay would occur from the Project, and there would be no change in the Bay current's erosive or siltation characteristics. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project site's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions and the Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As described under the above Thresholds b) and c), the Project site's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction (as it does under existing conditions) and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. As concluded in the Project- specific WQMP included as Appendix /to this document, the proposed Project would 125 reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate of volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff discharged. In addition, the Project would implement BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs that would filter sediments from surface runoff and also promote surface runoff percolation. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As discussed below under Threshold f), the proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the character of storm water runoff discharged from the subject property as compared to existing conditions. The proposed Project's land-side components are designed to ensure that post-development runoff rates and volumes closely resemble those that occur under existing conditions. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction (as it does under existing conditions) and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New on-site drains would be constructed to direct low-flow and first-flush runoff to the proposed BMPs prior to discharging off-site through the existing bulkhead outlets. As concluded in the Project-specific WQMP included as Appendix /to this document, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate of volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff (and pollutants) discharged. With mandatory compliance with the NPDES permit and the requirements included in the Project-specific WQMP, the Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project has the potential to temporarily impact the water quality of Newport Bay through sedimentation and turbidity during water-side construction and dredging activity (approximately 4 weeks). Long-term water quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation measures would reduce construction-related effects to below a level of significance. 18( To implement the proposed water-side development, site preparation would include dredging of sediment and grading of upland soils. Unless silt curtains are deployed around the dredge site and barge to confine suspended sediment particles from drifting beyond the job site when bottom sediments are disturbed, the water quality of Newport Bay could be temporarily affected. Impacts are potentially significant and mitigation to ensure the use of silt curtains is required. In order to construct the land-side portion of the Project, an existing 1,200 SF building and portions of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot would be demolished to prepare the site for redevelopment. These ground-disturbing activities would temporarily result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants with the potential to adversely affect water quality. Fine sediments generated from demolition, dredging, and construction activities that may be transported to Newport Bay in storm water runoff could result in a localized effects to water quality. However, according to the Project- specific WQMP included as Appendix /to this document, due to the limited amount of landscaping on the Project site, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. Accordingly, biotreatment BMPs in the form of Modular Wetland Systems and StormFilter Units are proposed to be utilized on-site for water quality treatment. Modular Wetland Systems are biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling and biofiltration. According to the Project-specific WQMP, the Modular Wetlands would be located in the southern portion of the Project site near the reconfigured driveway entrance off East Coast Highway. Runoff from the proposed building and southern portion of the parking lot would drain to a proposed StormFilter media filtration unit to be located within the garage floor below the proposed building. A StormFilter is a pre-cast vault storm drain insert system that uses passive, siphon-activated media-filled cartridges that trap and absorb particulates and pollutants (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, pp. 21-22). Refer to the Project- specific WQMP included as Appendix / to this IS/MND for a further description of Modular Wetlands Systems and StormFilter Units. The Project would be required to prepare and implement the Project-specific WQMP pursuant to the requirements of the City's NPDES permit. The Project's WQMP (Appendix 6 identifies Structural Source Control BMPs (i.e. storm drain system stenciling and signage, design and construction of outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction. Refer to Appendix /for a complete list of Structural Source Control BMPs and Non-Structural Source Control BMPs (i.e. activity restrictions, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance. Refer to Appendix /for a complete list of Non-Structural Source Control BMPs to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat storm water runoff flows before they are discharged from the Project site. With required implementation of the WQMP, operation of the land-side portion of the Project site would have a less-than- significant impact to water quality. Additionally, during Project operation, an additional 36 boat slips would be located in Newport Harbor. Boating activities occur under existing conditions and the addition of boat slips would not result in any new water quality impacts associated with boating. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Refer to MM BR-9 127 in Section 5.4.4, Biological Resources, of this document, which requires the preparation and ongoing implementation of a Marina Management Plan for the Balboa Marina. The Management Plan would include reasonable BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. The marina operator will be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. g) Would the Project place housing within a 700 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not place housing on the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a f ederal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project does not propose to place housing on the Project site. Thus, the Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. h) Would the Project place within a 700-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not place structures on the Project site that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. As shown on General Plan Figure 4.7-3, Flood Zones, the land-side portion of the proposed Project is not located within an area identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by 100-year flood. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.7-3) Accordingly, the land-side portion of the Project site would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The Project proposes to establish a new public boat dock and to add boat slips to the private Balboa Marina. The new public dock would include a gangway and approximately 12 public boat slips including eight (8) new boat slips and four (4) transient boat slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips accommodating a range of vessel sizes and a new gangway are proposed to be added. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the water-side portion of the Project site is located in FEMA Flood Hazard Zone A and is subject to inundation by a 100-year flood. The largest discharge into Upper Newport Bay is the San Diego Creek, which accounts for approximately 80% of flows entering the upper portion of Newport Bay. (Everest 122 International Consultants, Inc, 2013, p. 49) During a flood event, stormwater runoff from San Diego Creek and other channels upstream of the water-side portion of the Project will carry debris such as green waste (i.e. small tree branches and sticks) with the freshwater flow. The City of Newport Beach regularly deploys debris bloom upstream from the Project site to prevent the debris from entering the Lower Newport Bay. If there is not deployment of the debris bloom upstream from the Project site, the proposed dock extension would act like a debris bloom collecting debris behind it during a rain event (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, pp. 15-16). Maximum current at the water-side portion of the Project site would occur if the peak of the flood flow arrives when the tide is ebbing and flowing. (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, p. 13)The addition and relocation of boat slips would not necessarily impede or redirect flood flows beyond existing conditions. However, as under existing conditions, if deployment of the upstream debris bloom does not occur, there is a potential for flood flows to be redirected and/or impeded by a build-up and gathering of debris in and around the water-side portion of the Project site. With compliance with the required BMPs, as stated in the Project-specific WQMP, including maintenance of the dock area, and Project design features, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. I) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. According to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operation Plans, Dam Failure Inundation Map, the Project site is not located within a dam failure inundation area (City of Newport Beach). Additionally, the Project does not propose to construct, remove, or alter any levee or dam. As such, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. j) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation byseiche, tsunami, ormudflow? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. With compliance with the provisions of the flood damage provisions in the City's Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. According to the City of Newport Beach, the Project site is located within a 500-year Tsunami Hazard Zone Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (inundation elevation of 9.07 feet). In addition, the State of California-County of Orange Newport Beach Quadrangle Tsunami Map for Emergency Planning (County of Orange, 2009) indicates that the :Lg9 Project site is located within a designated tsunami inundation area. Newport Beach is generally protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chili, and possibly off the coast of Central America. Since the 1800's, more than thirty tsunamis have been recorded in Southern California, and at least six (6) caused damage in the area, although not necessarily in Newport Beach. Locally generated tsunamis caused by offshore faulting or landsliding immediately offshore from Newport Beach are possible, and these tsunamis have the potential to be worst-case scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.7- 16) The City has prepared an Emergency Management Plan, which identifies tsunami evacuation routes, tsunami evacuation sites, response plans, and utilizes an outdoor emergency siren system to provide residents with advance warnings of potential tsunami emergencies. The Project site is located within the coverage area of the outdoor emergency siren within Veterans Memorial Park at 1541h Street and Bay Avenue on the Balboa Peninsula. The proposed Project would not change the potential for exposure of people or structures to water inundation in the rare instance of a tsumani. The Balboa Marina would have the same level of tsunami risk with or without the implementation of the improvements proposed by the Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required. The General Plan EIR identifies Mariner's Mile, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Village at risk resulting from seiche in Newport Harbor. The Project site is not located in an area identified by the General Plan as at risk from seiche. Additionally, the Balboa Marina would have the same level of seiche risk with or without the implementation of the improvements proposed by the Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required. In the case of both tsunami and seiche risk, mandatory Project compliance with the flood damage provisions in the City's Municipal Code would be required. Hydrology and Water Quality: Mitigation Measures MM HWQ-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other permits a Marina Management Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant and approved by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina Management Plan shall identify construction and operational best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential water quality impacts to Newport Bay. The Management Plan shall include BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. MM HWQ-2 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare, and the City of Newport Beach shall review and approve, a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit and be provided evidence that the RWQCB has issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 19D MM HWQ 3 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: All construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Marina Management Plan related to construction-related activities. The Management Plan shall be implemented as a requirement of the long- term operation of Balboa Marina. The marina operator shall be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. COA: The dredging permit shall state that scow doors used to release dredged material at the approved dredge materials disposal location shall be required to remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-3 would reduce the Project's potential water quality impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No Imoact. The Project site does not immediately abut any existing residential neighborhoods; thus, the Project would not physically divide any established communities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is located along the eastern side of Newport Harbor in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay.. As previously shown on Figure 2-4, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses, the Project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking; on the south by water surface and Linda Isle, a man-made island consisting of residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter; on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots; and on the west by the channel of Lower Newport Bay. Although residential uses occur to the north, south, and west, these neighborhoods already are separated from one another by Lower Newport Bay and/or East Pacific Coast Highway. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to physically divide any existing established communities, and no impact would occur. b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of a voiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 191 Finding: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed Project include the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code/Municipal Code, as well as the AELUP for the JWA, and the Orange County NCCP/HCP. The proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure LU-1 ensures that City review of applications for a Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Analysis of Consistency with the City of Newport Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach approved a comprehensive update to its General Plan in November 2006. The General Plan has ten elements: Land Use Element, Harbor and Bay Element, Housing Element, Historical Resources Element, Circulation Element, Recreation Element, Arts and Cultural Element, Natural Resources Element, Safety Element, and Noise Element. The General Plan and these elements present a vision for the City's future and goals and policies to implement that vision. As shown previously on Figure 2-5, the Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the Bay on sites located on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006, p. 3-12). The Project proposes to add a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina by adding additional private boat slips, and to demolish portions of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 SF building to construct a reconfigured parking lot and a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building with an outdoor patio and tuck-under parking. The proposed marine commercial building, which is anticipated to accommodate a restaurant, marina restrooms, office space for a yacht brokerage, as well as the new public dock and additional private boat slips, represent "coastal-dependent and coastal-related" land uses. The new public transient dock, expanded private marina, and land-side improvements also would "maintain the marine theme and character" of the site's surroundings. The marine commercial building anticipated to accommodate a restaurant and the and public and private boat slips would be "mutually supportive," and would serve to "encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses." The new public boat dock and design of the marine commercial building with an outdoor patio also would "encourage physical and visual access to the Bay." The new public boat dock would provide 12 slips and establish a new public transient boat dock in Lower Newport 192 Bay to provide a new point of vertical public access. In addition, the new public dock would allow the relocation of the four (4) existing transient public boat slips currently located in the private Balboa Marina to an area of Lower Newport Bay that is more easily accessible to transient public boaters. The Project would accommodate enhancements to resident and visitor boater's abilities to access the land from the water and allow transient public boaters to easily navigate from a new public dock in Lower Newport Bay to restaurants and commercial uses in and around the Balboa Marina. The Project also would assist the City of Newport Beach in meeting the need for a variety of boat slip sizes in Newport Harbor by adding a new public dock and additional boats slips at the Balboa Marina that accommodate a range of vessel sizes, including slips for vessels 20-feet in length and under. For these reasons, the proposed Project fully complies with the site's "CM 0.5 FAR" General Plan land use designation. During the City's review of the Project's AIC application, the Planning Division reviewed the proposed application materials for consistency with all applicable policies of the General Plan, and found that there would be no conflict with any applicable General Plan policies resulting from the Project. Policies applicable to the proposed Project are discussed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis (Refer to Appendix M7). As indicated in Appendix M1, the proposed Project would be fully consistent or otherwise would not conflict with any policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Accordingly, impacts due to a conflict with applicable General Plan policies would be less than significant. Analysis of Consistency with the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) declares it a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone and prohibits development 1,000 feet inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from the state coastal commission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established the California Coastal Commission and identified coastal resource planning and management policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and development. Implementation of California Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) by the local government that is reviewed and certified (approved) by the Coastal Commission. The City of Newport Beach does not have a certified LCP, and therefore, does not have the jurisdiction to issue Coastal Development Permits (CDP). The City does, however, have a Coastal Land Use Plan that has been certified by the California Coastal Commission. Because the City does not have permit jurisdiction, the City reviews pending development projects for consistency with the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning regulations before an applicant can file for a CDP with the Coastal Commission. The City is presently in the process of preparing an Implementation Plan for the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. The City relies on the California Coastal Commission to issue development permits. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere X93 of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. As shown previously on Figure 2-6, the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Project site as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM-A, 0.00-0.30 FAR). The CM category is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal- related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor-serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on the waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2009, p. 2-2). The Project, which would have a FAR of less than 0.30, would be fully consistent with the site's Coastal Land Use Plan designation. During the City's review of the Project's AIC application, the Planning Division reviewed the proposed application for consistency with all applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan, and found that there would be no conflict with any applicable policies resulting from the Project. Policies applicable to the proposed Project are discussed in Appendix M2, Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis. As indicated in the proposed Project would be fully consistent or otherwise would not conflict with any policies of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan. Accordingly, impacts due to a conflict with applicable Coastal Land Use Plan policies would be less than significant. Analysis of Consistency with the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code/Municipal Code The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code carries out the policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. It is the intent of the Zoning Code to promote the orderly development of the City; promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social and economic vitality of the neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2014). As shown previously on Figure 2-7, Existing Zoning Designations, the Project site is zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). The CM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for commercial development on or near the waterfront that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor- serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on sites located on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2014). The Project, which proposes a new marine commercial building, a new public boat dock, new private boat slips, and the reconfiguration of an existing parking lot, would be consistent with the purpose of the CM Zoning District. There are no components of the AIC application that would conflict with the Zoning Code or Municipal Code. Additionally, future applications for a SDR and/or CUP would be reviewed for compliance with the City's Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Where necessary, conditions of approval will be imposed on the SDR and/or CDP to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code. The City also would review future implementing development applications, such as grading and building permits, for conformance with the Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Accordingly, the 1J°-9- proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code or Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant. Analysis of Consistency with the City of AELUP for JWA According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is the nearest public airport to the proposed Project site, the proposed Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, nor is the site subject to any impacts (safety or noise) due to airport operations. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County. The Project site does, however, occur within the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77, which the proposed Project does not. The Project has no potential to conflict with the AELUP for JWA, and no impact would occur. Analysis of Consistency with the Orange County NCCP/HCP The Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) were completed in 1996, and the City of Newport Beach became a signatory agency in July of 1996. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi-species multi-habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The NCCP/HCP focuses on multiple species and habitats and addresses the conservation of these species on a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange-throated whiptail, in addition to 26 other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP/NCP. An additional ten species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as if they were listed according to FESA Section 10(a) are addressed within the NCCP/HCP. According to Figure 11 of the NCCP/HCP, Preliminary Reserve Concept, the Project site and surrounding areas are not targeted for conservation as part of the NCCP/HCP (Orange County, 1996, Figure 11). Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with the NCCP/HCP. There are no additional Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project site or vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Conclusion As indicated in the above analysis, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM LU-1, the Project would not conflict with the City's General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, the Zoning Code/Municipal Code, the AELUP for the JWA, or the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Accordingly, impacts due to a potential conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project would be mitigated to a level below significant. 19� c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As noted above under the analysis of Land Use and Planning Threshold b), the proposed Project site is located within the Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP/HCP, which does not identify the Project site and surrounding areas for conservation (Orange County, 1996, Figure 11). Due to the developed nature of the Project site, the site also does not contain any habitat for any of the plant or animal species addressed by the NCCP/HCP. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with the NCCP/HCP. There are no additional Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project site or vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Land Use and Planning: Mitigation Measures MM LU-1 The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. and ensure compliance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM LU-1 would reduce the Project's potential land use and planning impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.11 Mineral Resources a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: No Impact. The Project site is mapped within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ 1), which is an area defined as containing no significant mineral deposits. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to the City's General Plan EIR, which uses mapping conducted by the California Geological Survey (CGS) that maps areas known as Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs), the Project site is mapped within MRZ 1, which is an area defined as an area containing no significant mineral deposits (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.5-4). No mines, wells, or other resource extraction activity occurs on the property or is known to have ever occurred on the property. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 1J° b) Would the Project result in the loss of avallability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No Impact. The City's General Plan does not identify the Project site as containing a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City's General Plan does not identify the Project site as containing a I ocally important mineral resource recovery site (City of Newport Beach, 2006, Figure 4.5-3). In addition, there are no specific mineral resource plans applicable to the Project site, and no other plans that identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on the Project site or immediate vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mineral Resources: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts to mineral resources. Accordingly, mitigation measures are not required. 5.4.12 Noise a) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. With mandatory adherence to the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards, the proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's Municipal Code or General Plan Noise Element, or the California Building Code. However, mitigation is recommended to ensure that operation of an outdoor patio at the future marine commercial building complies with the qualitative provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Section 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Section 10.28.020). Because noise from operation of the restaurant's outdoor patio could potentially conflict with City noise ordinance standards, the impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is required. The primary noise standards applicable to the proposed Project are noise standards contained in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element. 2�� Table 5-7 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards Allowable Noise Levels, Ly(dBA) Land Use Categories Interior Exteriora•b 7 AM to 10 PM 7 AM to 10 PM Categories Uses 10 PM to 7 AM 10 PM to 7 Single Family, Two Family,Multiple 45 40 55 50 Residential Family(Zone 1) Residential Portions of Mixed Use 45 40 60 50 Developments (Zone III) Commercial Commercial (Zone II) N/A N/A 65 60 Industrial Industrial or Manufacturing(Zone IV) N/A N/A 70 70 Schools, Day Care Centers, Institutional Churches, Libraries,Museums, 45 40 55 50 Health Care Institutions(Zone 1) a. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. b. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed either of the following: • The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15-minute period; A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time(measured using A-weighted slow response. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix-/1,Table 4-2. Newport Beach Municipal Code ♦ Municipal Code Chapter 70.26 (Community Noise Control) establishes provisions for the control of noise sources within the City. Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) establishes exterior noise standards, as follows: ♦ Municipal Code Section 70.26.035 identifies exemptions to the noise standards outlined in Chapter 10.26, and specifically excludes "noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property." Noise standards for construction activities are instead established by Municipal Code Chapter 10.28 (discussed below). ♦ Municipal Code Chapter 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise) regulates the `...making, allowing, creation, or maintenance of loud and unreasonable, unnecessary, or unusual noises which are prolonged, unusual, annoying, disturbing and/or unreasonable in their time, place and use are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, general welfare and the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants. ♦ Municipal Code Section 70.28.040 (Construction Activity - Noise Regulations) provides noise regulations for construction activity, and prohibits noise being produced during specific hours of the day and days of the week or year. Specifically, construction activities are limited by Section 10.28.040 to between 192 the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays (except holidays), and prohibits construction activities on Sundays and federal holidays. ♦ Municipal Code Section 70.26.045 states that new heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment cannot exceed a noise level of 50 dBA when measured at a residential property line. A noise level of 55 dBA is permitted if the equipment is installed with a timer that deactivates the equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ♦ Municipal Code Section 70.28.020 prohibits the emission or transmission of any "loud or raucous" noise from any sound-making or sound-amplifying device. No quantitative noise standard is provided. ♦ Municipal Code Section 70.28.040 prohibits construction work that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities. ♦ Municipal Code Section 70.28.045 prohibits maintenance work that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Maintenance work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for maintenance activities. ♦ Municipal Code Section 20.30.080 prohibits deliveries, loading, unloading, opening/closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, trash receptacles, or similar objects within a nonresidential zoning district between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. ♦ Municipal Code Section 20.48.090(C) requires that owners/operators of an eating and drinking establishment that sells, serves, or gives away alcohol shall post signs at clearly visible locations within the establishment and at both on-site and off-site parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum. ♦ Municipal Code Section 20.48.090(E) requires that the building structure in which bars, nightclubs, and lounges are located be adequately soundproofed so that interior noise is not audible beyond the lot lines with the doors and windows closed. The predominant noise sources associated with the proposed Project are additional traffic on local streets, activities at the expanded Balboa Marina and proposed public transient boat dock, activities and equipment at the proposed marine commercial building, and parking lot activities. Each of these is discussed below. ♦ Traffic. Using data provided by the Project's traffic study (Appendix K), analyses were conducted by Wieland Acoustics to identify the traffic noise exposures that �99 would occur in the study area with and without the Project. The resulting analysis (refer to Tables 9-7 and 9-8 of Appendix A indicates that the Project's traffic would increase noise on area roadways by up to 0.3 dB CNEL. This estimated increase in noise level is below the Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) allowable noise levels, and the impact is thus less than significant. No other provisions of the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would be violated by a nominal increase in traffic noise on area roadways. ♦ Expanded Private Marina and Public Boat Dock. When the additional private boat slips and new public transient boat dock proposed by the Project are in operation, it is expected that there would be an incremental noise level increase associated with use of the boat slips. The increase would be commensurate with the number of new boats using the slips, the frequency with which the new slips are used, and the mix of engine types (fueled or electric) on the new boats. Because these factors are unknown, the incremental increase in noise can be estimated by assuming that it will be proportional to the increase in the number of slips. There are currently 105 slips at the Balboa Marina. The proposed Project would add 24 private boat slips and 8 new public boat slips, for a total of 32 additional slips and 137 total slips. According to Weiland Acoustics (refer to Appendix A, this will produce an estimated increase of 1 dB relative to the noise level produced by the use of the current Balboa Marina. This estimated increase in noise level from the use of the new slips is below the Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) allowable noise levels, and the impact is less than significant. No other provisions of the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would be violated by operation of the expanded private Balboa Marina or public boat dock. No outdoor noise amplification devices are proposed at the private Balboa Marina or at the proposed public boat dock. Persons using the boat docks are required to comply with the City's noise control ordinance standards, which are enforced by the operator of the Balboa Marina and the City of Newport Beach. ♦ Marine Commercial Building. The Project proposes a 19,400 SF building anticipated to accommodate a restaurant with outdoor patio, public restrooms, and a yacht brokerage office. Because the activities associated with office spaces and restrooms would occur exclusively within the interior of the building, they are not expected to produce significant noise levels outside of the structure that would be audible at surrounding properties. The proposed restaurant, however, has the potential to violate the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards if loud noise is produced on the outdoor patio or by live entertainment a bar, lounge, or nightclub. Based on measurements obtained as part of other noise studies for restaurants in Newport Beach, and taking into account the distances to the nearest residential properties (270' to 650'), Weiland Acoustics reports that is unlikely that the activities at the proposed restaurant would exceed the quantitative noise standards identified in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Wieland Acoustics, 2074, p. 33). However, they may violate the qualitative provisions of the Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Chapter 5.28, Chapter 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Chapter 10.28.020). 200 Therefore, the noise impact is considered to be potentially significant and mitigation is required. ♦ Parking Lot. Using data provided by the Project's traffic study (Appendix K), analyses were conducted by Wieland Acoustics to identify the noise exposures from operation of the reconfigured parking lot. A computer noise model was prepared by Weiland Acoustics utilizing SoundPLAN software, which predicts noise levels based on the size of the parking lot, the number of parking spaces, and the number of hourly vehicle movements. This model takes a number of important variables into account, including source sound power levels, the distance from sources to receivers, the heights of sources and receivers, ground conditions, barrier effects provided by walls, buildings and topography, and noise reflected from hard surfaces such as buildings and walls. The results of the noise modeling are shown in Figure 5-12, Estimated Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels, as a noise contour map. Referring to Figure 5-12, the noise level due to peak evening parking lot activities is estimated to be 43 dBA at the closest residential property on Linda Isle, and notably less at the residences on Bayshore Drive to the west. These levels are below the City's daytime and nighttime standards of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively, for residential uses; therefore, the impact is less than significant. Also, assuming that standard residential construction provides at least 10 dB of noise reduction with windows open, the interior noise level due to parking lot activities is expected to be 33 dBA at the residences on Linda Isle. At the residences on Bayshore Drive the interior noise levels would be even less. These levels are below the City's daytime and nighttime standards of 45 dBA and 40 dBA, respectively; therefore, the noise impact from the Project site's parking lot activities is less than significant. At the nearest existing restaurant, the noise level from the parking lot activities is expected to be about 48 dBA. This is below the City's daytime and nighttime standards of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively, for commercial uses; therefore, the noise impact is less than significant. No other provisions of the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would be violated by operation of the proposed Project's reconfigured parking lot. ♦ Construction Noise. Noise will be produced from construction activity associated with the Project, over a p e6od of approximately 15 months in total, from demolition of land-side improvements to final Project completion. Temporary and intermittent construction-related noise levels are disclosed for each construction phase in the Noise report attached to this document as Appendix J. As indicated therein and summarized below under Threshold d), estimated average noise levels experienced by surrounding properties would range from a high of 85 dBA during pile installation to a low of 56 dBA during architectural coating activities (painting). Municipal Code Section 10.26.035 exempts construction noise from quantified noise standards and impacts associated with short-term construction noise would be considered significant only if the construction activity violates the standards contained in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations). The Project would fully comply with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, which limits construction activities to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays (except holidays), and prohibits construction activities on Sundays and 201 federal holidays. Because construction activities would be compliant with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element Policy Nl.l of the City's General Plan Noise Element requires that all new projects are compatible with the noise environment in which they will be located. Compatibility is determined by using the values identified in Table 5-8. Table 5-8 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards CNEL, dB 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- Category Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential Single Family,Two Family, Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial(Regional, Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D District) Commercial(Regional, Commercial Retail, Bank, A A A A B B C Village District, Special) Restaurant,Movie Theatre Commercial, Industrial, Office Building, Research and Institutional Development, Professional Offices, A A A B B C D City Office Building Commercial (Recreation), Amphitheatre, Concert Hall B B C C D D D Institutional(Civic Center) Auditorium,Meeting Hall Children's Amusement Park, Commercial(Recreation) Miniature Golf course, Go-cart A A A B B D D Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial(General, Automobile Service Station,Auto Special), Industrial, Dealership,Manufacturing, A A A A B B B Institutional Warehousing,Wholesale, Utilities Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Golf Course,Cemeteries, Nature Open Space Centers,Wildlife Reserves,Wildlife A A A A B C C Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Zone A: Clearly Compatible-specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible-New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditionally will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible-New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible-New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source:Weiland Acoustics (Appendix 4,Table 4-1. The land use category applicable to the Project site is "Commercial," which is compatible with a noise environment of up to 80 dB. The Project proposes to construct one marine commercial building with its nearest proposed building fagade located at a distance of about 230 feet from the centerline of East Coast Highway. Based on the analysis contained in Appendix J, the noise level at the proposed marine commercial 202 building is calculated to be 70 dB. This is less than the significance criterion of 80 dB; therefore, the Project will not result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan, and the noise impact is less than significant. California Building Code The California Building Code (CALGreen) requires that the interior noise level of a commercial establishment not be exposed to noise levels that exceed 50 dBA. Weiland Acoustics obtained a noise measurement at the Project site during the evening peak hour to identify the existing average noise level at the nearest proposed marine commercial building fa(;ade. The results of this measurement, provided in Appendix J, indicate an Leq of 60.3 dBA. This value was then used to calibrate a proprietary version of the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model to estimate the future peak hour noise level that will occur at the upper level of the proposed commercial building. The results of the analysis indicate an estimated peak hour Leq of 69.8 dBA. Assuming that standard commercial construction provides a noise reduction of 25 dB with windows and doors closed, the interior Leq within the proposed building is estimated to be 44.8 dBA. This complies with the State's CALGreen standard of 50 dBA; therefore, the impact is less than significant. (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 36) b) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less-than-Sianificant Impact. People would not be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Groundborne vibration is an oscillatory motion which can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. The dominant source of vibration on the land- side portion of the Project site would be from short-term construction activities associated with pile driving. The dominant source of vibration on the water-side portion of the Project site would be from short-term construction activities associated with pile driving and dredging. A root mean square (rms) particle velocity of 2.0 in/sec (= 0.05 m/sec) is commonly used as a safe (threshold) limit for buildings, although minor damage has occasionally occurred at 1.0 in/sec (- 0.025 m/sec) (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 15). Therefore, 1.0 in/sec is used as the significance threshold herein. The primary vibratory sources during construction of the Project's land-side improvements will be the dozers and the bore/drill rig used to place the land-side piles. The primary vibratory sources during construction of the Project's water-side improvements will be pile driving activity. An analysis was conducted by Weiland Acoustics to estimate the groundborne vibration velocities that would be experienced at the nearest adjacent buildings during construction of the Project (refer to Appendix J). The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5-9. 203 N J O w � V11 U ev'ni � < amm h COC JI C f11 d 4 Qd O N Q a� N O h I I 1 y J 0 `o o � x n o� m s � °oa Table 5-9 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels Estimated PPV, in/sec Location Water-side Land-side Combined Residences on Linda Isle 0.0758L 3 0.0788 Residences on Bayshore Dr. 0.016301 0.0173 Sol Restaurant in Newport Harbor 0.0094 0.013 Residences on N. Bayside Dr. 0.01037 0.047 Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix A,Table 9-6. These vibration levels are less than the threshold of 1 .0 in/sec; therefore, the construction-related impact is less than significant. There would be no sources of vibration associated with Project operation. c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Within the Project's study area (as determined by the traffic study scope (see Appendix K)), the noise-sensitive land uses of concern are the residential properties adjacent to roadway arterials carrying Project traffic, the residences on Linda Isle, the residences on Bayshore Drive across Lower Newport Bay from the Project site, the restaurants located to the east of the Project site, and Least Tern Island in Upper Newport Bay. Some of the residences are buffered from the traffic noise by walls and fences of various heights. (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 17) The City's General Plan Noise Element Policy N1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase that would be significant is shown in the following table. Table 5-10 Significant Noise Impact Criteria CNEL dB Increase 55 dB 3 60 dB 2 65 dB 1 70 dB 1 Over 75 dB Any increase is considered significant Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix A,Table 4-3. Traffic on roadway arterials is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. However, the area is also affected occasionally by noise from activities at the existing Balboa Marina, its parking lot, and the adjacent restaurants. In order to document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained by Weiland Acoustics at two locations in the study area (refer to Table 5-11). Location #1 was 2015 chosen in lieu of a measurement on Linda Isle because measurements could not be taken in Linda Isle due to private property issues. Location #2 was chosen to represent the closest residences to the north of the Project site. Table 5-11 Summary of Existing Noise Measurements Measured Location Measurement Average Noise # Location Description Period Level, dB(A) 1 On the seawall at Newport Harbor 3:50 PM to 60.1 4:10 PM Z At the offset of the mobile homes north of the 2:38 PM to 59.5 Project site 2:58 PM Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix l), Table 8-1. Predominant noise sources associated with the land-side portion of the Project are expected to be from additional traffic on the local streets, parking lot activities, and activities and equipment associated with operation of the marine commercial building that is anticipated to house a restaurant with outdoor patio, marina restrooms, and a yacht brokerage office. Predominant noise sources associated with the water-side portion of the Project are expected to be from activities associated with the new public transient boat dock and the private Balboa Marina boat slip expansion area. ♦ Traffic. As documented in Appendix J, additional Project-related traffic is expected to increase the ambient CNEL by up to 0.3 dBA at Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. Project-related traffic noise increases along other area roadways would be less than 0.3 dBA. None of the land uses along any of the study area road segments experience noise levels over 75 dBA; therefore, any increase of less than 1.0 dBA is considered less than significant (refer to Table 5-10 for significance criteria). Thus, because the Project would increase traffic noise by less than 1.0 dBA, traffic-related noise impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. ♦ Expanded Private Marina and Public Boat Dock. The Project proposes to add 24 private boat slips and 8 new public boat slips, for a total of 32 new slips. Weiland Acoustics reports that boat activity associated with the additional slips would produce an estimated increase of 1.0 dB relative to the noise level produced by the use of the current Balboa Marina. Assuming that the noise level measurement for Location #1 indicated in Table 5-13 is representative of the noise level experienced by residential properties on Linda Isle, a 2.0 dB increase would be a significant impact (refer to Table 5-10 for significance criteria). Because additional boat activity would increase noise by only 1.0 dB, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. ♦ Marine Commercial Building. Except for use of the outdoor patio, activities associated with the proposed marine commercial building would occur interior of the building, and are not expected to produce significant noise levels at the nearest residences on Linda Isle or Bay Shore Drive, or at the existing nearby restaurants. Based on measurements obtained as part of other noise studies for restaurants in Newport Beach, and taking into account the distances to the nearest residential properties (270' to 650'), Weiland Acoustics reports that it is unlikely that long-term permanent activities at the proposed building would 200 exceed the quantitative noise standards identified in Table 5-10. (Wieland Acoustics, 2074, p. 33) Operational activities would be required to comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code noise ordinance standards. Thus, noise impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Temporary and periodic noise associated with the marine commercial building is discussed under Threshold d), below. ♦ Parking Lot. Using data provided by the Project's traffic study (Appendix K), analyses were conducted by Wieland Acoustics to identify the noise exposures associated with the reconfigured parking lot. The results of the noise modeling are shown in Figure 5-12, Estimated Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels, as a noise contour map. Referring to Figure 5-12, the noise level due to peak evening parking lot activities is estimated to be 43 dBA at the closest residential property on Linda Isle, and notably less at the residences on Bayshore Drive to the west. These levels are below the City's 55 dB daytime and 50 db nighttime noise standards for residential use. No noise increase is calculated, because a parking lot exists on the Project site under existing conditions and no component of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration would result in noise level increases audible at off-site properties. d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. With mandatory adherence to the timing provisions of Municipal Code § 10.28 during construction activities, Project impacts due to a temporary or periodic noise increase associated with construction activities would be reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation is recommended to ensure that operation of an outdoor patio at the future marine commercial building does not result in substantial temporary or periodic noise level increases. The only potential sources of substantial temporary or periodic increases in noise levels are temporary and intermittent noise associated with the Project's construction process and periodic noise that may be generated from operation of the marine commercial building's outdoor patio. ♦ Construction Noise. Noise will be produced from construction of the Project, over a period of approximately 15 months. Temporary and intermittent construction-related noise levels are disclosed for each construction phase in the Noise report prepared by Weiland Acoustics and attached to this document as Appendix J. As summarized in Table 5-12, Estimated Average Construction Noise Levels, estimated average noise levels experienced by surrounding properties would range from 85 dBA during pile installation to 56 dBA during architectural coating activities (painting). The City considers construction-related noise impacts to be significant if the construction activity violates the City's noise control ordinances (Wieland Acoustics, 2074, p. 76). Construction activity associated with the Project will be required to conform to all City of Newport 20 j Beach Municipal Code noise ordinance standards; therefore, temporary noise impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. ♦ Marine Commercial Building. The Project proposes a 19,400 SF building anticipated to accommodate a restaurant with outdoor patio, public restrooms, and a yacht brokerage office. Because the activities associated with office spaces and restrooms would occur exclusively within the interior of the building, they are not expected to produce significant noise levels at surrounding properties. The proposed restaurant, however, has the potential to produce substantial periodic noise from operation of the outdoor patio or if operations include live entertainment a bar, lounge, or nightclub. Based on measurements Table 5-12 Estimated Average Construction Noise Levels Noise-Sensitive Estimated Construction Noise at Location Construction Phase Receptor Waterside Landside Combined Pile Installation 66.5 72-85 Existing residences Building Construction 70-85 67.2 72-85 on Linda Isle Site Work, Drainage 66.3 72-85 Paving 67.6 72-85 Tenant Improvements 59.5 70-85 Architectural Coating 57.7 70-85 Pile Installation 59.6 63-76 Existing residences Building Construction 61-76 60.3 64-76 on Bayshore Dr. Site Work, Drainage 58.5 63-76 Paving 59.8 64-76 Tenant Improvements 52.6 62-76 Architectural Coating 50.8 61-76 Pile Installation 60.0 62-73 Existing Sol Building Construction 58-73 60.7 63-73 Restaurantin Site Work, Drainage 64.4 65-74 Newport Harbor Paving 65.7 66-74 Tenant Improvements 53.0 59-73 Architectural Coating 51.2 59-73 Pile Installation 58.7 60-70 Existing residences Building Construction 55-70 59.4 61-70 on N. Bayside Dr. Site Work, Drainage 62.3 63-71 Paving 63.6 64-71 Tenant Improvements 51.7 57-70 Architectural Coating 49.9 56-70 Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix A,Table 9-5. obtained as part of other noise studies for restaurants in Newport Beach,and taking into account the distances to the nearest residential properties (270' to 650'),Weiland Acoustics reports that is unlikely that the activities at the proposed restaurant would exceed the quantitative noise standards identified in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 36). However, operations may violate the qualitative provisions of the Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Chapter 5.28, Chapter 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Chapter 10.28.020). Therefore, the periodic noise impact of the Project, associated with operation of the marine commercial building, is considered to be potentially significant and mitigation is required. 202 e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within the noise contours of an airport land use plan or where such a plan has been adopted, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As discussed under Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold e) the nearest airport to the Project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the Project site is not located within JWA noise impact contours. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. The Project is not located within a vicinity of an airstrip. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As discussed under Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold f) there are no private airstrips within the Project vicinity. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Noise: Mitigation Measures MM N-1 As a c ondition of CUP issuance for a restaurant use in the marine commercial building and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any restaurant, bar, lounge, or nightclub to be located in the marine commercial building, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to verify that the building operations, including operations in the outdoor patio, comply with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.090(E) of the City's Municipal Code. MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that: a) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State- required noise attenuation devices. 209 b) During the construction phase, the Project Applicant shall ensure that construction hours, allowable work days, and the telephone number of the job superintendent are clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the appropriate party. c) When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). d) During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. e) Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM N-1 and MM N -2 would reduce the Project's noise impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.13 Population and Housing a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either direct/y (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: No Impact. The Project proposes Recreational and Marine Commercial land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan and would not induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006). The proposed Project would develop the property with Recreational and Marine Commercial land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan. The Project proposes to reconfigure the arrangement of uses on the Project site to establish a new public boat dock in an area of Newport Harbor that currently lacks a public dock, and to improve the private Balboa Marina including its water-side and land-side areas. The Project is a visitor-serving use and has no potential to induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 210 b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No Impact. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures. Accordingly, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to displace housing. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No Impact. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures; therefore, no people reside on the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to displace substantial numbers of people. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Population and Housing: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact Population and Housing. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.14 Public Services Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services.- a) Fire protection; b) Police protection; c) Schools, or d) Other public facilities? Finding: No Impact. Public services are currently provided to the site for operation of the Balboa Marina; therefore, the proposed Project would not measurably increase public service demands or result in the need to physically alter or cause the construction of new public service facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions, fire protection, police protection, and other public services are provided to the Balboa Marina. The Project proposes to reconfigure the arrangement of uses on the Project site and establish a new public boat dock in an 211 area of Newport Harbor that currently lacks a public dock, and to improve and expand the private Balboa Marina including its water-side and land-side areas. The new public boat dock is not anticipated to create a demand for increased police protection. No overnight tie ups would be allowed. In addition, the dock would accommodate four (4) slips to be relocated out of the private Balboa Marina. Since 2009, Irvine Company (owner and operator of the Balboa Marina) has discovered that management of the marina is challenging in terms of providing security for the private slip lessees while still providing open access to the four (4) public slips. Moving the public slips to a better- located public dock has the potential of reducing demand for resolving security issues at the boat slips. The marine commercial building would be provided with police, fire protection, and other public services and would not measurably increase demand on public services. No component of the Project would measurably increase public service demands or result in the need to physically alter or cause the construction of new public service facilities caused by an increased demand for services. Because no physically expanded or new public facilities would be required, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Public Services: Mitiaation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase Public Services demand such that new or physically altered public service facilities would need to be constructed or expanded to meet the demand. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.15 Recreation a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: No Impact. Except for perhaps very nominal attraction of more visitors that may use public parks, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor- serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the Bay on sites located on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006). The proposed Project would develop the property with Recreational and Marine Commercial land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan. Except for perhaps very nominal attraction of more visitors that may use public parks, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that 212 substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would provide a new public transient boat dock in Newport Harbor, increase the number of boat slips in the private Balboa Marina, and reconfigure uses in the land-side portion of the marina. The environmental effects of on-site uses, including the boat docks that are considered a marine recreational use, are evaluated throughout this document. The Project would not result in the construction or expansion of any off-site recreational facilities. No additional impacts would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project proposes marina uses that are considered recreational, and which are evaluated throughout this document for their physical effects on the environment. Under subject areas to which significant effects would occur, mitigation measures are presented to reduce the impacts to below levels of significance The Project would not result in the expansion of any off-site recreational facilities. The recreational impact would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Recreation: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact to Recreation. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.16 Transportatlon/rrafflc a) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance or the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-generated trips would not increase by 1% or more at any study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D (LOS D) during the morning/evening peak hours. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. A less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Applicable plans, policies, and ordinances related to performance of the circulation system and applicable to the proposed Project are the City of Newport Beach General 213 Plan and Municipal Code. The Orange County Congestion Management Plan is discussed below under Threshold b). City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The City of Newport Beach General Plan establishes level of service (LOS) "Y as the standard for most intersections. LOS "E" is the established standard for a limited number of intersections (Newport Beach, 2006a, p. 7-6). City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Guidelines and provisions related to transportation are addressed in the following sections of the Municipal Code: Title 12 (Vehicles and Traffic); Chapter 15.38 (Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance); Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and Chapter 20.64 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance). Each of these sections of the Municipal Code is briefly discussed below. ♦ Title 72, Vehicles and Traffic. Title 12 addresses traffic and parking enforcement, as well as safety programs, trails programs, bicycle use, skateboarding use, and other temporary traffic and parking protocols. ♦ Chapter 75.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance. Chapter 15.38 was established by the City Council to establish a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance sets forth procedures for calculating the fair-share amounts for residential projects, hotel/motels, and office/retail/commercial uses, which are adopted by City Council resolution. ♦ Chapter 75.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Section 15.40 was established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically, the ordinance was established to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; to identify the specific and near-term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; to ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. S ecfion 15.40.030 (Standards for Approval - Findings - Exemptions) specifically exempts the following project types from compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: a) projects that generate three hundred (300) or fewer average daily trips; b) projects that do not increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary intersection during any evening or morning peak hour; and c) any project that meets certain other criteria as specified in the Ordinance. 214 ♦ Chapter 20.64, Transportation Demand Management Requirements. The Transportation Demand Management requirements apply to all new, nonresidential development projects that are estimated to employ a total of one hundred (100) or more persons, or the current limit set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Rule 2202, whichever is lower at the time of project submittal. Chapter 20.64 is not applicable to the proposed Project because it is not expected that 100 or more people would be employed on-site. Analysis of the Proposed Project A Traffic Study was prepared for the Project by Kunzman Associates, which is included as Appendix Kto this document. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, Kunzman Associates calculated that the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips, 14 of which occur during the morning (AM) peak hour and 74 of which occur during the evening (PM) peak hour as shown in Table 5-13, Project Trip Generation A 44% pass-by trip reduction was applied to the restaurant land use based upon the ITE Handbook. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 20) Trip distribution pattern information is contained in Appendix K. Morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volume exhibits for the Project's traffic are provided as Figure 5-13, Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes, and Figure 5-14, Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement. The City of Newport Beach methodology used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The intersection significance criteria for the City of Newport Beach requires an increase of 1% or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than a Level of Service (LOS) D during the morning/evening peak hours. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 26). The study area intersections for the proposed Project are listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, and attached to this document as Appendix K. For existing year (Year 2014) traffic conditions, the study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning/evening peak hours. As shown on Table 5-14, for existing year (Year 2014) + Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 2115 Table 5-13 Project Trip Generation Quantity Units' Morning Peak Hour Evening Daily Inbound Outbound I Total Inbound Outbound Total Trip Generation Rates TSF 0.66 0.15 0.81 5.02 2.47 7.49 89.95 Quality Restaurant' TSF 1.37 0.19 1.56 0.25 1.24 1.49 11.03 Office Berth 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.19 2.96 Marina Existing Trips Generated° 1.2 TSF 2 0 2 0 1 1 13 Yacht Brokerage Proposed Trips 16.274 11 2 13 82 40 122 1,46 Generated TSF 0 0 0 -36 -18 -54 -5 Quality Restaurants 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Pass-By 5 36 TSF 1 2 3 4 3 7 10 Office Berth Subtotal 12 4 16 50 25 75 1,519 Net New Trips I I 1 101 4 141 50 1 24 74 1,506 1 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers;Trip Generation,9th Edition,2012,Land Use Categories 931, 710,and 420. 2 TSF=Thousand Square Feet 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,does not provide inbound/outbound splits for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7:00 AM -9:00 AM) for the Quality Restaurant land use.Therefore, the inbound/outbound splits for the AM peak hour of generatorwere used. 4 The manna restrooms generate nominal trips.The yacht brokerage and marina.restrooms will be accommodated within the new development. 5 The quality restaurant will include patio/etc. that is ancillary to the restaurant.The building total is 19,400 square feet. b The traffic volumes have been reduced by 447.for the quality restaurant as a result of pass-by trips obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Handbook,2nd Edition,2004. Source: Kurtzman Associates (Appendix K),Table 2 w v a o N n a E LL w < Y w O = o c a f O y�7120B C O � Z Dib O b X o Q 4 Jq Sv a 9arbar3 Y Q Z ;o Z e - - O q z �� t i o �� W oYbbso a a�b�Oso ag el �0 v ap v 2p � O4p4pp 3 q4p4pp EF r0 a@$ d b b rp a . �aQi` Os T I° 8 0 ° z ° i�°IYP �a a 0 an!jO � n 0 10400 - 38 oa s dbbs0 a dbbsa a = her ^bad s�eyor'` �r ¢ ° 0-0°I Y ° a P 0-0 0� o a 0� L m v v ti^ = dgb4-0 € a-p a st a : dlbso a : o � Q a �b�s0 as= < dbbso a db�nIn c ° os° $1 ° 0�h4P 0� S Pena 0� o o 0 0—° o 0� 3 nog 03 3 0� f L maN 0 L 0 i dbbsn a dbbIn a dlbsu a ° oi' YP3 ° fO� °� YP ° o-0hYP € a 0, 0� 0 0� o as of �o �o a�bbsa a � 4- ID a5 a�bbsn as dbb �° a albso as os4 ? Pi ° °'° ? P 0� 0_o o, a 0 a —g o0� a y .4' el vo vi K v0 F z z 8 3 H m `F L 00S ? w v w O c U a � o Z W w 0 ui �C a�4 c co b Q d �Santa Barbataa? £ ,C3a (9 Q Z go �ti w w °deo aPr b sn so a p 94,af m �°IYI° �K e o�°IYI' g e9 '•Z Jaz aYgbru a �e aY�bso a �� anuQ e p Janop Lt� q O n n p r f '° ' n_p it � �p �� dlbsos a �� a� bbso a � 1 Y f a� 0 0--n °I Y esn aa= "">_ a abbs°a a dbbso a 0 Oil 03 PJenaln08 03 0 5l Uo Mali I e Z Lv f 40 � v �p n v 4p o dbbsnddbsi a � dbbso a �= ° of > ct5o° YP "e 0 o-�o � YP gA dbb�u a 3 albso ag$ dbbso a = albsa a 0l o adz e =`o ns z� tl 3 0 F L 00S Table 5-14 Existing (Year 2014)+ Project Intersection Capacity Peak Hour ICU-LOS Intersection Traffic Existing(Year 20141 ICU Increase Control2 Existing(Year 2012) +Project Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Newport Boulevard SB Ramp(NS)at: West Coast Highway EW TS 0.873-D 0.659-8 0.873-D 0.659-8 0.000 0.000 Riverside Avenue(NS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.771-C 0.789-C 0.772-C 0.790-C +0.001 +0.001 Tustin Avenue(NS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.761-C 0.608-B 0.762-C 0.610-8 +0.001 +0.002 Irvine Avenue(NIS)at: 19th Street/Dover Drive(EW) TS TS 0.523-A 0.61&B 0.523-A 0.617-8 0.000 +0.001 17th Street/Westcliff Drive JEW) 0.457-A 0.711-C 0.457-A 0.712-C 0.000 +0.001 Dover Drive(NS)at: Westcliff Drive(EW) TS TS 0.429-A 0.440-A 0.430-A 0.445-A +0.001 +0.005 16th Street(EW) TS 0.496-A 0.495-A 0.498-A 0.499-A +0.002 +0.004 West Coast Highway(EW) 0.619-B 0.681-B 0.620-B 0.686-B +0.001 +0.005 Bayside Drive(NIS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.651-B 0.619-B 0.654-B 0.627-B +0.003 +0.008 Jamboree Road(NS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road EW) TS TS 0.605-8 0.521-A 0.605-B 0.523-A 0.000 +0.002 Santa Barbara Drive(EW)East TS 0.493-A 0.614-B 0.493-A 0.615-B 0.000 +0.001 Coast Highway(EW) 0.570-A 0.659-B 0.571-A 0.660-B +0.001 +0.001 Santa Cruz Drive(NS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.309-A 0.340-A 0.309-A I 0.340-A 0.000 x000 Santa Rosa Drive(NS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.330-A 0.465-A I 0.330-A 0.465-A 0.000 0.000 Newport Center Drive(NS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.37-A 0.452-A 0.371-A 0.453-A 0.000 +0.001 Avocado Avenue(NIS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.451-A 0.502-A 0.451-A 0.502-A 0.000 0.000 MacArthur Boulevard(NS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS TS x641-8 0.734-C 0.642-B 0.735-C +0.001 +0.001 San Miguel Drive(EW) TS 0.529-A 0.477-A 0.529-A 0.478-A 0.000 +0.001 East Coast Highway(EW) 0.679-8 0.649-8 0.679-B I 0.650-8 0.000 +0.001 1 ICU-LOS=Intersection Capacity Utilization-Level of Service(see Appendix Q. 2 TS=Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix K),Table 3 X29 To account for regional growth on roadways, Year 2017 traffic volumes were calculated based on a 1 % annual growth rate over a three-year period. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 30) For existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours with the exception of the following study intersection: • Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: o West Coast Highway (EW) (Morning Peak Hour, LOS E) As shown in Table 5-15, for existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects + Project traffic conditions, the Project-generated trips did not increase by 1% or more of a study area intersection operating at worse than LOS D during the morning/evening peak hours. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The City of Newport Beach staff provided the list of cumulative projects within the study area to Kunzman Associates, Inc. for analysis. The cumulative projects list is appended to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc, and included as Appendix Kto this document. For existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours, with the exception of the following study area intersection: • Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: o West Coast Highway (EW) (Morning Peak Hour, LOS E) For existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects + cumulative projects + Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours, with the exception of the following intersection that is projected to operate at LOS E during the morning peak hour: • Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: o West Coast Highway (EW) (Morning Peak Hour, LOS E) As shown in Year 2017+ Project + Growth Intersection Capacity, for existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved project + cumulative projects + Project traffic conditions, the Project-generated trips did not increase by 1% or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than LOS D during the morning/evening hours. Thus, a less-fhan- significant impact would occur. 220 Table 5-15 Year 2017+ Project Intersection Capacity Intersection Traffic Peak Hour ICU-LOS' Control' Existing+Growth ICU Increase Existing+Growth (year 2017)+ (year 2017)+ Approved Projects Approved Projects +Project Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Newport Boulevard SB Ramp(NS)at: West Coast Highway EW TS 0.93-E 0.70-13 0.93-E 0.70-13 0.00 0.00 Riverside Avenue INS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.83-D 0.84-D 0.83-D 0.84-D 0.00 0.00 Tustin Avenue INS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.82-D 0.66-B 0.83-D 0.66-B +0.01 0.00 Irvine Avenue INS)at: 19th Street/Dover Drive(EW) TS 0.54-A 0.63-8 0.54-A 0.63-B 0.00 0.00 17th Street/Westliff Drive(EW) TS 0.47-A 0.73-C 0.47-A 0.73-C 0.00 0.00 Dover Drive(NS)at: Westcliff Drive(EW) TS 0.43-A 0.44-A 0.43-A 0.45-A 0.00 +0.01 16th Street(EW) TS 0.50-A 0.50-A 0.50-A 0.51-A 0.00 +0.01 West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.66-8 0.74-C 0.66-13 0.74-C 0.00 0.00 Bayside Drive INS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.71-C 070-B 071-C 0.70-13 U.001 0.00 Jamboree Road INS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.65-B 060-A 0.65-B 0.60-A 0.00 0.00 Santa Barbara Drive(EW) TS 0.53-A 0.66-8 0.53-A 0.668 0.00 0.00 East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.61-8 0.72-C 0.61-B 0.72-C 0.00 BOB Santa Cruz Drive(NS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.32-A 0.36-A 0.32-A 0.36-A 0.00 0.00 Santa Rosa Drive(NIS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.38-A 0.50-A 0.39-A 0.50-A 0.00 0.00 Newport Center Drive INS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.4D-A 0.49-A 0.40-A 0.49-A 0.00 0.00 Avocado Avenue INS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.50-A 052-A 0.50-A 0.52-A 0.00 0.00 MacArthur Boulevard(NSI at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.67-B 0.79-C 0.67-B 0.78-C 0.00 0.00 San Miguel Drive(EW) TS 0.58-A 0.50-A 0.58-A 0.50-A 0.00 0.00 East Coast Highway(EW) TS I 0.71-C I 0.67-8 0.71-C 0.68-B 0.00 +0.01 1 ICU-LOS=Intersection Capacity Utilization-Level of Service(see Appendix C). 2 Ts=Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix,),Table 6 221 Table 5-16 Year 2017+ Project + Growth Intersection Capacity Intersection Traffic Peak Hour ICU-LOS' ICU Increase Control' Existing+Growth Existing+Growth (year 2017)+ (year 2017)+ Approved Projects Approved Projects r Cumulative Project Cumulative Project +Project Morning FEvening Morning Evening Morning Evening Newport Boulevard SB Ramp INS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.962-E 0.744-C 0.962-E 0.746-C 0.000 +0.002 Riverside Avenue INS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.862-D 0.895-D 0:863-0 0.897-0 +0.001 +0.002 Tustin Avenue(NS)at: West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.853-D 0.69(18 0.854-D 0.691-8 +0.001 +0,001 Irvine Avenue(NS)at: 19th Street/Dover Drive(EW) TS 0.539-A 0.635-B 0.540-A 0.637-8 +0.001 +0.002 17th Street/Westcliff Drive(EW) TS 0.492-A 0.772-C 0.493-A 0.773-C +0.001 +0.001 Dover Drive INS)at: Westcliff Drive(EW) TS 0.452-A 0.462-A 0.453-A 0.466-A +0.001 +0.004 16th Street(EW) TS 0.512-A 0.521-A 0.513-A 0.525-A +0.001 +0.004 West Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.687-B 0.784-C 0.688-B 0.789-C +0.001 +0.005 Bayside Drive(NS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) IS 0:743-C 0.782-C 0.745-C 0.790-C +0.002 +0.008 Jamboree Road INS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.6848 0.625-B 0.684-8 0.625-8 0.000 0.000 Santa Barbara Drive(EW) TS 0.564-A 0.681-8 0.564-A 0.682-B 0,000 +0.001 East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.667-B 0.836-D 0.668-5 0.838-D +0,001 +0.002 Santa Cruz Drive(NS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.323-A D.359-A 0.323-A 0.359-A 0.000 0.000 Santa Rosa Drive INS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.382-A 0.503-A 0.382-A 0.503-A 1 0.000 0.000 Newport Center Drive(NS)at: East Coast H ighway(EW) T5 0,422-A 0.540-A 0.422-A 0.541-A 0.000 +0.001 Avocado Avenue INS)at: East Coast Highway(EW) IS 0.568-A 0.599-A 0.568-A 0.599-A 0.000 0.000 MacArthur Boulevard INS)at: San Joaquin Hills Road(EW) TS 0.691-8. 0.800-D 0.691-3 0.801-D 0.000 +0.001 San Miguel Drive(EW) TS 0.594-A 0.538-A 0.594-A 0.539-A 0.000 +0.001 East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.799-C 0.764-C 0.799-C 0.765-C 0.000 +0.001 1 ICU-LOS=Intersection Capacity Utilization-Level of Service(see Appendix C(. 2 TS=Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix l),Table 8 b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: No impact. The proposed Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips. Based on the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) thresholds, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Orange County CMP including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Orange County CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any projects generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3% or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities capacity (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.13-22). The proposed Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 20) Based on the CMP thresholds, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Orange County CMP including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. The Project site is not located within an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Planning Area, Airport Impact Zone, AELUP Notification Area or an Airport Safety Zone. The height of the proposed Project's marine commercial building would not result in air traffic safety hazards. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The nearest airport to the Project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the Project site is not located within the Airport Planning Area or the Airport Impact Zones, the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, or the Airport Safety Zones (OCALUC, 2008, Figure 1). The Project site does, however, occur within the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77. (OCALUC, 2008) The Project's proposed marine commercial building would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach non-residential shoreline height limit, so the building height 223 with a flat roof may be constructed to a maximum 35 feet, or 40 feet with a sloped roof, with approval of a future Site Development Review application by the City of Newport Beach. The building height would not result in airport safety impacts. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) orincompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: No Impact. The Project does not propose roadway improvements or roadway design features. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project does not propose planned improvements to roadways. The Project does not propose modification to the parking entrance from East Coast Highway. Only the internal configuration of the existing parking lot would be modified as discussed below. To implement proposed land-side improvements, the existing Balboa Marina parking lot would be demolished. The parking lot would be re-established in a modified configuration containing drive aisles, parking spaces, landscaping, and pole-mounted lighting. The existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide internal circulation and parking to accommodate the proposed land-side development. The parking lot near the Bayside Drive entry would be modified in order to reduce turning movements, and the overall layout of the parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. No new design features are proposed for public roadways. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose improvements or disturbances to public roadways. During short-term construction activities, the driveway to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway would remain open during a majority of the construction process. When the driveway to East Coast Highway is temporarily closed, emergency vehicles would have access to the Project site via the driveway entrance from Bayside Drive. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project does not propose improvements or disturbances to public roadways. Under existing conditions, emergency roadway access is provided via East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. No full or partial temporary lane closures would occur along East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive during Project construction. The driveway to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway would remain functional and accessible during a majority of the construction process. When the driveway connecting to East Coast Highway is temporarily closed, emergency vehicles would have access to the Project 224 site via the driveway entrance from Bayside Drive. Thus, short-term construction activities would not impede emergency vehicles from accessing the Project site. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. A less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? Finding: No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element includes a number of goals and policies related to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These include the policies identified under General Plan Circulation Element Goal CE 4.1 (Public Transportation) and CE 5.1 (Alternative Transportation Modes). An analysis of Circulation Element Policies that are applicable to the proposed Project is provided above under the topic Land Use and Planning Threshold b). As concluded above, the Project would be consistent with or would not otherwise conflict with the City's alternative transportation policies. No impacts would occur and mitigation is not required. Transportation/Traffic: Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact to Transportation/Traffic. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not increase the need for wastewater treatment beyond the wastewater treatment requirements under existing conditions. Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. A less than significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The majority of the City of Newport Beach (approximately 13.5 square miles), including the Project site, receives wastewater service from the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach has a Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan that project future wastewater demands, plan for physical improvements to the wastewater collection system, and detail how wastewater is planned to be collected and treated. Wastewater from the City of Newport Beach's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). A majority of the City's sewage flow, including flows from the Project site, is conveyed to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2, which has a design 225 capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd) and operates under capacity. (Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.14-23) Wastewater treated by the OCSD at Plant No. 2 is required to be treated in accordance with federal, state, and regional requirements for water quality prior to being discharged into the Pacific Ocean. On the water-side portion of the Project site, vessel pump-out accommodation would be provided for the new private boat slips in the some way that the pump out and holding tank system works at the Balboa Marina. Vessel pump out accommodation is not proposed for the new public boat dock due to the transient nature of its operation. On the land-side portion of the site, the Project site is fully developed under existing conditions and is served by subsurface sewer lines. The composition of wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be similar to that generated by other marine commercial and restaurant uses in the City, with no hazardous components. The proposed building planned for the land-side portion of the Project site is planned to contain a restaurant, yacht brokerage office, and marina restrooms. Based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the building is expected to generate a d emand for 2,755 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater treatment capacity (Stantec 2014). The wastewater generated from the marine commercial building would be conveyed by the City's public sewer line network to the OCSD Plant No. 2 for treatment. The 276 mgd capacity of Plant No. 2 is designed to treat flows from buildout of its service area. Th e Project is fully compliant with the property's Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) General Plan land use designation and thus within the existing capacity of Plant No. 2, which meets applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. No aspect of the Project would cause the treatment plant to violate RWQCB requirements. A less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions, the Project site is provided domestic water and sewer services by the City of Newport Beach. Subsurface sewer lines, domestic water lines, water meters, and fire hydrants are located on the property. Although the infrastructure design on the land-side portion of the Project site would be modified by the Project, no off-site improvements would be needed and no expansions or construction of treatment facilities would be required. Also refer to the discussion under Threshold a,) above, and Threshold d), below. Water and wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to service the Project and treatment facility expansions would not be triggered by the Project. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. 220 c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a reduced runoff volume as compared to existing conditions. No off-site storm drain facilities would need to be expanded. Thus, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As discussed under Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold c), under existing conditions, storm water runoff generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction and discharge through the existing bulkhead outlets. (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, p. 8) The Project's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. As described the Project-specific WQMP included as Appendix / to this document, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate and volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff discharged. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. Operation of the Project site with marine commercial uses is considered in the City's Urban Water Management Plan, which concludes that the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. Although the Project would increase water demand as compared to the site's demand under existing conditions, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. A less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. A large majority of the City of Newport Beach (approximately 35.77 square miles, including the proposed Project site) receives domestic water service from the City of Newport Beach. The City receives its water from two main sources: 1) local groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and pumped from four active wells owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach (60%), and 2) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) as wholesaled to the City by the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) (37%). In addition to these two main supply sources, the City also uses a small amount of recycled water for irrigation purposes (3%). Detailed information about these water supply sources are contained in the City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), 227 which is herein incorporated by reference and available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City's UWMP calculates that water demand in the City will increase by 11% over the 25-year period of 2010 - 2035, to 18,474 acre-feet of water demand City-wide by 2035. The UWMP also documents that the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. (Newport Beach, 2011 a) A Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in 2009 and is included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 14.16, "Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations." The Ordinance creates a Water Conservation and Supply Shortage Program that establishes four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage. Additionally, Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping) of the City's Municipal Code requires the use of water efficient landscaping as part of new or rehabilitated projects. To verify compliance with the provisions of Chapter 14.17, landscape documentation packages must be submitted to the City for review and approval. The City reviews the landscape documentation packages for compliance with the provisions of the design standards set forth in Section 14.17.030 (Landscape Water Use Standards). The marine commercial building proposed for the land-side portion of the Project site is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of domestic water (Stantec 2014). The City's UWMP assumes build-out of the City in accordance with its General Plan, which designations the Project site as Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR). The proposed Project is consistent with the CM 0.3 FAR designation, and thus its water demand is planned for by the UWMP. Landscaping on the Project site is required to comply with the water-efficient landscaping requirements of the City's Municipal Code Chapter 14.17. The City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand (Newport Beach, 2011 a, p. 2). Accordingly, the Project would not result in the need to expand water entitlements. A less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: Less-than-Significant Imoact. The Project would be adequately served by the OCSD. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the OCSD. Under existing conditions, wastewater treatment from the Project site is pumped to the OSCD Plant No. 2. OCSD Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.14-23)(mgd) and currently treats an average flow of 153 mgd. Currently, Plant No. 2 is operating at 55% of design capacity. Accordingly, the Project would be adequately served by the OCSD. Also refer to the discussion under 222 Threshold a), above. A less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code § 12.63.030, solid waste is collected in the City by franchise waste haulers that have formal agreements with the City to collect its solid waste. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irvine, serves the City of Newport Beach. This landfill is 725 acres in size with 534 acres permitted for refuse disposal. It is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 11,500 tons per day and has enough capacity to remain in operation until at least 2053. Public Resources Code § 40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated. The City of Newport Beach consistently meets the objective of Public Resources Code §40000 et seq. Commercial waste haulers within the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty (50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City at any landfill." All solid waste generated by the Project would be collected by City services in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 to ensure that a minimum of fifty percent of the solid waste collected is diverted from landfills, either through source separation by City residents or through separation of recyclable materials following collection. In order to construct the land-side portion of the Project, the existing 1,200 SF building located at 201 East Coast Highway, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms, would be demolished. Additionally, portions of the existing parking lot would be demolished to prepare the site for redevelopment. Demolition activity is anticipated to result in 14,700 CY of demolition material composed of asphalt, landscape material, soil, and deconstructed building material. Demolition material would be deposited into a landfill and asphalt would be recycled offsite at an approved recycling facility. There is sufficient capacity in the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) landfill system to accommodate the construction waste. Based on the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR Table 4.14-14 for commercial uses, the proposed marine commercial building would result in the long- term generation of approximately 97 pounds per day of solid waste and can be accommodated within the permitted capacity of 11,500 tons per day at the Frank R. 229 Bowerman Landfill. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Public Resources Code § 40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated. The proposed Project would be subject to the City's Recycling Service Fee pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, which is intended to assist the City in meeting the 50 percent diversion objective. Commercial waste haulers within the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty (50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City at any landfill." Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage), which mandates that non-residential projects provide enclosed refuse and recyclable material storage areas in compliance with the minimum storage area requirements provided in Municipal Code Section 20.30, Table 3-5. Additionally, food service uses may require additional enclosed storage areas as determined by the City in association with the Project's future SPD and CUP applications. With compliance of applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Utilities and Service Systems: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Finding: Less-than-Sianificant Impact with Mitiaation Incorporated. The proposed Project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, temporarily reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species during its water- side construction activities, and eliminate water-bottom eelgrass in an area of Lower Newport Bay proposed to be dredged. The Project also has the beneficial effect of creating 600 SF of intertidal mudflats and increasing waters of the United States by 6,772 SF by moving an existing 230 embankment 15 feet landward. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project to ensure that these impacts are reduced to below a level of significance. No historic resources are located on the property. Although there is a remote and unlikely potential that archaeological resources would be unearthed during the Project's construction process, mitigation measures imposed ensure that resources would be properly identified and treated should they be discovered. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and additional mitigation measures are not required. As indicated in the analysis presented throughout this document, and assuming the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would result in no impact or less-than- significant impacts to the environment. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Biological Resources in Section 5.4.4, Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to the California brown pelican and California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, Fishery Management Species (FMS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFP), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). In the case of these species, impacts would be the result of temporary construction activities in the water, such as dredging and pile driving that may result in increased water turbidity and noise. Species are expected to temporarily leave the Project area due to short-term construction-related disturbance and/or irritation. These species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. In order to accommodate the new public dock and additional private boat slips, 37 piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor, a riprap embankment would be constructed approximately 15-feet landward of the existing riprap embankment, and approximately 1 .0 acre of water bottom surface would be dredged. The relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 6,772 SF of water surface and 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The loss of 54.4 SF of soft bottom surface area for the piles would be compensated for by the 600 SF mudflat creation area, resulting in a net increase of 545.6 SF of soft surface bottom habitat. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would have a beneficial long-term impact on waters of the United States, mudflats, and associated resource groups (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 37) Dredging would permanently impact eelgrass habitat and temporarily reduce benthic (bottom dwelling) invertebrate habitat. Additionally, although Project construction activities in the water would result in short-term temporary displacement impacts to the California brown pelican, California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, and Fishery Management Species (FMS), the impacts would be temporary (approximately 4 weeks) and the species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. Upon completion of the dredging and pile driving activities, fish and marine mammals would move back into the area and benthic invertebrates would recolonize the shallow subtidal habitat. Therefore, impacts would be a short-term and less than significant with mitigation imposed to reduce the 231 temporary impacts. The long-term impact to eelgrass would be significant and require mitigation, as discussed under Biological Resources in Section 5.4.4Threshold a). As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Cultural Resources in Section 5.4.5, there would be no impact to historical resources resulting from Project implementation. Although the Project site is not identified as being sensitive with respect to archaeological resources, mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project to ensure the proper treatment of any resources that may be uncovered during construction of the proposed Project. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on historic and prehistoric resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Project would therefore be less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required. In order to evaluate the Project's potential to result in cumulatively significant impacts, the City of Newport Beach Planning Division compiled a list of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The list of cumulative projects is provided below: Project Name Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ciosa-Irvine Project Newport Dunes Hoag Hospital Phase III St. Mark Presbyterian Church 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Executive Court Hoag Health Center North Newport Center Santa Barbara Condo(Marriott) Newport Beach City Hall 328 Old Newport Medical Office Coastline Community College Bayview Medical Office Mariner's Point 232 4221 Dolphin Striker San Joaquin Hills Plaza Uptown Newport(Phase 2) Uptown Newport(Phase 1) Marina Park Based on this list of projects and the evaluation of Project impacts in this document and Technical Appendices A through M2, the Project's impacts in every environmental subject area would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation applied for the Project's direct impacts. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project for its direct impacts would also mitigate its contribution to cumulative effects. 233 % ( 5 / /_ ` \ u cr \ \ \ \ \ 0 . 2 § o \ E \ E § ° ( ) § © � \ _ < CL < 25c cu % § u \ = f \ t \ 0 \ \\\ 2E/ _ 2E » »a 4 § 3 \ eee / « 2 / t } w = < zC)-0 < ) % \ E 5 / J \ e § ± \ \ \ 92 » ; » » , » o = , e * o / 37 § 37 \/3 § & 7 /\ ± / = t = = % 7y 2, / � -0c o0 o o = ow 20, gggg E yEk � ` t \ \ % \ \ \ / \ ± \ ^f \ ` ] \ g@E \ § f * ± 22 ` ° ` 7 } � k ® ) } { » S � -0 -C ° \ \ / \\ D 0 o ) = o 0-00 0 \ yoo / 7 \ — CL ® ° § o { ° / ) \ G E © f � { \ a ) Q- 0 . 0- o u0a) S �/ \ / t o - EG \ o / u ) 5 a = 5a - § omv) z E I \ = >t famo ` ® yE` { - a � ■ G _ o , \ \ = e2E / § , - So _CC (D a = £ £ a _ b \ - o = - # z ° / c93f f5o \\ 5 § -© / 0-2\ 0g: 0% o2ou j = { £ 5 ƒ m j \ ) s70EE/o ) % 2a -1 >- '7 j \ y0) \}8 \ // 9 � § { t « o/§ cC2fe - 2 © _ = § 7{ e - x aGo , oo = - o : a abo _=- » o = - = o ocs ! = < _ u = /® � ; o = 0E:0 t 2 { ca ® o - : : @ g & E_ o g - g - o o $ - u C) 2u7 � © # § b 7Eu @ c ! § o o : t \ «t - so ) « $ _ , \ yoga ± \ G _2 £ Ob2oot 20 = 25 o c � zuo 0, u = o & o k ) ^ t J 2 ) \ ƒ cc ) \ \ i \ \ ' \ E .0 § / E0 S \ S \ ! \ f ) \ 2 § \ a § 0 oou / / u 0ou cuo cos cu 2j 2 2 § % \ t § 5 ±2 ± \ ± \ /3ga / ) <Z o � U \ f / § � \\ \\ // ) \ \§ 3 /§ 2 j2 { 6 \t ® < ± § / \ j \ 'Fi a) -a 0 - a3 [\ #sf± ou � « � ; 5 - » \ \3 \ \ [ 02Eyo = ! o2E / 2 0 / f : > = : u = , , { E u- = � . c -t- � _% o c 3 _ om ° ° § G , » « © 5 » k &¥ ®/ § EE2 / 0 -0 t { * » / to2E£ a ` j2 \ / \\\ \ \\ \ \ � \ \ � \ \\ \ { / /\ \ / � f \ 002 » 2 § » { \m 0- -0 D � 0 \ /) \ 222 - c� Q) —00 c _ t { \ E , o - _ _ ` = o - & = o » yG ° o5 ± § a os0u ) � , § = - e � - = o = \ § D ; u § @ - o = _ _ \ \ 2 ° 9 » » / [ 5J { = o oa77 = \ u , { Ec ; [ &/ { o § ( Je = =£ { / § ƒ DISC - \ § / \± / / goa = o - - - °f � » - E / } = 0 § # 7 = 222 = a ; o % tro : Q) ; ? 0E yt2 \ 2e22 = C3 Ea / £ ® > E ® 2o § e ` = ^ ± c ® QLo0 0) Steo7S u0-r- c & ; gE o » ` E > o 0--0 of § = < f u % e -C()LO � oG Qg }/ \ o a)u E / oo = 2 /e - =-- o � * e � E \ o2f ® � � 2 / ) > f � fe � ®3 ° ° = B Ee : - o , E = Ec . CL � � Et \ � \ © ® ® © G G ® 2 ® ® = S ~ » ° \ � j ) oE 2 ) : o § » (D (D zU > - fe \= 0 o =£ : &# uz � oz = o : a = = oou � eee6 \ Igr7c ; ; ( g � � 2y ; D : e ) y32 \/ { u £ £ m § = E &= ± ae_ < 5 & 2ao8a = § � e000e 2 } 2 \ \ \ « \ \ { § Q ` Ez3 ) \ E / f ± / � \ ) U 7- § \ 3 § ± I \ y m = o \ - { / y ! } 0 + 0 § 2 / G , .9 / ` _ - » £ moo / \ a \ \ � § j { ) f \ \ f0 » D 3 0 ( 0D- cc G0 E 2 ± Ea \ k \ * / E = o 0 cc CC: \ / \ \ @ \ f \ / e / \ 2 / \ /\ \\ ƒ ± E ® - - f72a � = « o : � � o - : - @ / � / » ® ` ° E -2 Cr�L—oC) \ « 3 : \ ` ) � { E00u © & aG ® & oe \ E - ® = 6 Q)E / / \ \ /\ \ƒ / { £ 5 3 < f \ yf = >» z % ± - g ± : © 5 / \ /$ { a) :E \ % e § ± , �abZt » d - ® Ezo\ \ { ± \ ` ` ° § _± ± \ § ES \ /) / \ ) a \ c / o ± / d \ j { § ° _ \ «/ \ ƒ\ \ \ \\ { ) § \ « /\ \ j u » \ \ � g { G » ) { 7 § / % Ef - LO E a) o z /t # = = < af § s » o = t \ \ E < \ o , sssco = a o =- c § § 47w 8 § cm - = E _ - = Q) (D. EDoo = cJ \ 0o ° ± \ \ ± / 7) 0 -L \/ ! /\ \ 0 0 CT /\ � \/ }\ \ \ { \ / � \ \ \ \g / oe \ ° - / /gz \\ \ > \ \ E \ j = ) 2 [ moo = � \ \U 7- r \ \ /37 { { ® mobC:)(D / eat -0 \ { © © Ej © o ® � v o 0) 0 9 - v ` 0 :L— » / u -5 E{ \\ = : » :L- § a2a oog g , ; = 7ee (Dgot / 7 O gff ® & c @ C3 a) { 7 ° ` {/ ° \ � ` � ± 2 G -0 C: - e 0U o ` c , � 3 § D ° ( = a ft ^ b % 0 \2 ® \ f »{ 2 ® u ® a _ ) 09 = i ; / � o / ° / / \ ) � / / ® 0) Q) § 2 - , _ _ - , , g = f E * -0 0 0tf / { 0 § / » 3& ; % = : f = oo == ze o E± \ 0) (D }/ { 2 $ \ \ { ` \ \ \ § % � 7 ® 0 o : eb co f o ; sz " >- .-- C) 2t �� ^ § =7 � _ (D = E E � % / 2 � 2z / 02 -0 -6/ / = a0003a0 o C) DoL- o = . - © 0 = 2 ` » 5o - ouEyo = ue = e \ LP -0 E / / { � { � \ � & / { ® ± C:)Q) = ` \ ( / \ ) fes C) -_00 / » a = uf \ \ U0 _r \ ¥ 00 @ � » � � a ) e § , / % § _ » £ § \ ° q / ® Q E± { \ J7 _ � = ® 0 ® a = ± 6 = ® 0 = - 0 2c 200 a) (D 0) cC3 , o / c = 0uuabGcEze \® goa = § ooG � - E c& E22 $ ® 2 \ / Eger $ § »\ ) Ef = 2gt22u -aa)o \ IL 0) eu C)_ 7@2 £ / § / ) 2 e & § e \ / e . . � o0 0 » 0 R © > j § \ \ \ /\ \ { \ 6 § £ \ § § [ { ] } uuo = = c / > tgatfE flap &®25 ± / ƒzz LU 9c § \ ® _ IL ( \ C) E7 / / / £ 2 ° ! ` }f \ \ : \ 7777 \* \ ® / ° \ f / 3 \ ± ± § ) ) / t § { \ ® \ \ /a ® G / § 22 > R G / ° ° ° 0) 0)0 top= e ° /t \ 0 (1)o - 27 ) 33 ) £ . be = mb - UD > o e % ob ° ° » § jJ= _ {\ ƒ 0C3Q Oo50Lnu E / E0C) f ° ) / ° ° 0) CT -a - ± 90 = 9a - = Efj4o » o = b ° § - 0) >/ / \ �& 0 0y �=)\ ) 0o —oo2ofu3 - tzc % ' 1T- C u ) ` ) ) { ® ® fE : o & SE Elf « § 000 \ boo ° XUJ CL = g \ oo = _ s o � o § _ : aeo e0 (DU m u -C o = ° ea00u � § \{ £ / / } 9 2 // ® U , a) 5 % § J ) % 2 § £ S § 9 : g IgE@ � E = S /72E0 \ E / { \ ) kƒ \ 7 /t / ƒ } ) \ § ± \sk \ 0 (D .2) /{ 2 m � � ° ° = / @ § te = ' : ( z _ = jo = ; � zoso = o5o � 2 k / \ \ � . . � 00 0 of 0 0 0 25C 2 % 2 z \ » u U0 : \\\ <Z 5 { J j \ 0 \k \ /\j Q) > %/ \ ± 2\ \ / / ) { \ ) f 0 � / { , / 5 = 22 / § e ; o 23: eo % ® b / > = : a & ° ; oEo { a ) \/ � \ f 6 ` \ 2 / �2 ® \ƒ ° � ) [ \ { , — { 75 ; c § o : § \ (D ® 5 ° Q { § a f § 26Dtm ` o ® of \ / � \ Q) \ � � � � � 000- \ D6 \ © ° � ) j > G o — — ac b = \2 — o = oog =± > - g = oo &_ & o = > C — z — ± © 7 g = E E I : £ ) \ © E / e | — Rf � 2 0Ca IL ) / [ \ § % / 4 % [ /\/ 2 \ 200 2 \ { � { 0 ° (D ® E * t ) — , ) � © 2 \ kw2a 7E G \ to — £ t , � o= ® 6 § c / 0 RGyO ( \ u / 5 » 3 [ g \ ; }\ \ / \ o @ $ 6 ) J £ § w — G2 /{ \a .-- 5@ \ � � � 0 \ \ k \ 3 0Iz3: » c G /} { E{ $ o // zE \ § % 2 « &ƒ j \ } { ° # / § \ g / 0 � / jGD0 ";r R / ° { /t \ a (D z : 4 < cozua ± y ) tt � � = = == oma f » ± < u1= 0o %% b ; E \C / @ ) E % { E § \U / � o � ® -LDW0) oo — at . ao / e § us 3 3 2 zee£ EE ! « & oe 0- < caa C'4 � \ \ 0 = _ Q \ -F, CO _ _ \ = C = co0 (1 / 3b \ , G0 00 - E , D10 = ` co 0 77 ± e [ omau E 0Q) a) s = » b &£ b � � � k u $ $ t � ° z0 00 _0 Q) - ea =® § c o / \ / { § j / / & EGE / ± ) { ± 2 / 3 [ } � � k © f k \ 2 \ » 3029 / § ® ° o ) 0(D z - ` - 0 / : \ t \ { \ // \ \ \ ] -000) / kS ) { - ' - 4 « ¥ 2000 , 00u � } } � � ( oe / t / a \ -0 / t § ) \ \ \ { \ { \ � { / { / a0) 0C: uLD \ _ { » � a 0 Ee55 ° \ Q �t 0 = 00uIL 0 » t a� / � » zLuoo o ® u � of >, m _0 e = m pu 0 o so 0000 saa c c u { { o { � { oy _000 \� �\ 7 \ /) 4 & / Q)E / { E & / \ \ i 2 ° § k § / }» / -a k -0220 / \ \ be ± ® E o4u = o4o =2 Dego # e00 oP ! ! « g « am os = at \ 4 _ > > g \ Q) c c E u ° u � \ § \ \ u ` ED \ < \ j7o co \ ; \= 0 ) c LD 0 ua) 9 L » % » % o £ » 5 ± ± a ) \ L Q) Q- / / § 3 zw \ < z zw \ 0 \ \ ) \\ > \ \ /37 /\ 3 /32 - = - = oo 0y052 \® fes E\ / { / az : - % o % - @ _ » = � = 0 f = o ° _ / 0 ` \ / � � } f / / / * / j2a 27 - / j ƒ j ! (L) a) ® + o tet = j § , _ ) b § f -0 -0 % { a ) 3 � et ) ) � y® 2 : So - o 00 0 _ : 2 � 2 / ® a 82 ` 22 / { /f � \ \\± \ \ \ ) J / § c a) ` ° ) \ / 10—D10 2 = _ 2 6 ` @ § tzo ) 2= 2gax2 « a © = per z2 \ eg ' oo � 7 » * - \ \ � § c x -C Q- Q. y - [ = g80 = o0a § 3 2 ooc &y § » f o � \ § 0 33 >,-0 C) 0 /j \ 2{ � { } § oJg z \ 2D $ � buE Q) E = - uo o _ a ) coa » cs \\/ ee2 0o , ƒ2 = e . _ » , , / E =tt &° ° © §\ RS / »_ & y} 4 � 3 = ® ` EJ3 = 20)0 o \ = &y J � � 7 = a � SSb2 ° sw �© � z)a)E 0 gf { o § ta } » 2222 > Z)o - � E5 § g4 = E2 � °s = : ^ % sJ / ) / £ _ § ' Q) Q) 3e > otos \ 3 { "00- uEc0E5C) 00R 2 « § / \ \ /) k ± } ( \ § ck ` ooa § \{ f = § 9 ) \ Q)0CL § e ouo § u 7 £ z = uso £ £ g@ » =� u 3 , / \ ! } / \ \ 0 \ \ a \ o ± § { e8 % § > 0 alt 0 \ ± Ga \/ _ \$ / \ ) - 9 /{ = * § = \ % / f® / � 2e { (c6 t « « o £ - t \ / { ƒ § e / ( / 7o0 = _ : 6 rfaf / \ { ( k \\ \ ° ) : -C 0 \ £ % 00 / g = , 5g u - *.— _ / b2S93o - ! / ( ( § 7 ¥ Q)>— a = � - 0a) ) yE 3g : olmo § & e { § k7 REE ® o oma ! &f -0 u » : te = a 0 / 2z 5 ` 0 ° = » a U@t7f / ` / \ m { £ { o $ f gt2 » ' '» ! o = ƒ a ` + © _ \ : oge = . = g ° t ® / % = oue \ ( fe » / ({ a 0 / ± \ » ° » 7 > 000 - - o ub > - tz § /t / { { e5t3u 6AE \ ] \ ` ~ « 0 u .9-- e 32 » © ` * 0 ° ° ` -0 Q) -0C \ 3E % = G cc X9999 § 2 \ ( � gy7 \ 0 � ! ( 0)a \ \\ \ \ / ® fy4 \/ kE6— E ®7 = ' g ` zzER { \ 3 « 7a0) L)0 $ \ / / (9 \ / 2a £a 3 2 3 3 7.0 References Cited As Reference Anchor QEA, LP., 2013 Anchor QEA, LP., 2013. Jurisdictional Delineation Report Balboa Marina West Expansion. December 2013 (Appendix C). CAA Planning, 2014 CAA Planning, 2014.E-mail correspondence from Tom Mathews to Tracy Zinn. May 15, 2014. CDC, 2010 California Department of Conservation, 2010. Orange County Important Farmland 2010. 2010. Available on-line at: ftp://ftr).consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/ipdf/2010/oralO.ipdf CDC, 2012 California Department of Conservation, 2012. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. 2012. Available on-line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.,qov/pub/dlrr)/WA/2012%20Statewide%20Map/WA 2 012 8xll.pdf Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan. July 25, 2006a 2006. Available on-line at: httr)://www.newiportbeachca.gov/index.aslpx?lpaqe=l 73 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2006. City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental 2006b Impact Report, General Plan 2006 Update (SCH No. 2006011119). July 25, 2006. Available on-line at: httip://www.newportbeachca.aov/index.asr)x?r)aae=l 96 City of Newport City of Newport Beach Mitigated Negative Declaration Balboa Marina Beach, Dock Replacement SCH No. 2007010017. Available for review at City of 2007 Newport Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, 2009 Newport Beach, 2009. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. July 14, 2009. Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachco.aov/index.aspx?paae=1317 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2010. Newport Beach Zoning Map. November 25, 2010. 2010a Available on-line at: http://www6.citv.newport- beach.ca.us/website/gis/pdf maps/Zoning 36X48.pdf Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2010. Tsunami Run Up Area (Map). April 2010. Available 2010b on-line at: htto://www6.citv.newport- beach.ca.us/website/gis/pdf maps/CitvLocationsTsunamiRunur)B 11X1 7.pdf Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. 2011 a Available on-line at: httr)://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.asr)x?doc umentid=10182 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2011. City of Newport Beach Emergency Management 2011 c Plan. 2011. Available on-line at: httr)://www.newportbeachca.gov/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc 2'4-3 Cited As Reference umentid=11179 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2012. Newport Beach Municipal Code. March 12, 2013. 2012a Available on-line at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2012. Complete Cruising Guide to Newport Harbor 2012b (Second Edition). March 2012. Available on-line at: htto://www.newr)ortbeachca.aov/Modules/ShowDocument.asr)x?doc umentid=12498 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2013. Newport Beach Fire Department(web site). 2013b Accessed May 15, 2013. Available on-line at: httip://www.newiportbeachca.gov/index.asipx?r)aoe=58 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2013. Newport Beach Police Department(web site). 20130 Accessed May 15, 2013. Available on-line at: http://www.nbpd.orci/ City of Newport City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.28.010 Loud and Beach Unreasonable Noise. Available online at: Municipal Code,2014 http://www.codepublishina.com/CA/NewportBeach/ County of Orange, State of California-County of Orange.Tsunami Inundation Map for 2009 Emergency Planning. Newport Beach Quadrangle. March 15, 2009. Available online at: http://www.conservation.co.aov/cas/aeoloaic hazards/Tsunami/Inund ation Maps/Oranae/Documents/Tsunami Inundation NewportBeach Quad Oranae.odf Coastal Resources Coastal Resources Management Inc., 2013. Marine Biological Impact Management, Inc. Assessment for the Balboa Marina West Project. December 12, 2013. 2013 (Appendix B). Environmental Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. 2014a. Phase I Engineering Environmental Site Assessment. April 30, 2014 (Appendix H) & Contracting, Inc., 2014a Environmental Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. 2014b. Phase II Engineering Environmental Site Assessment. May 16, 2014. (Appendix H) & Contracting, Inc. 2014b Everest International Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Impact Analysis for Proposed Consultants, Inc., Alternatives. March 2013. (Appendix E). 2013 Everest International Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Coastal Engineering Study. July Consultants, Inc., 2013. (Appendix D). 2013 Fuscoe Engineering, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Inc.,2014 (WQMP) Balboa Marina West Redevelopment Project. April 23, 2014. 244 Cited As Reference (Appendix I). Geotechnical Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 2014. Geotechnical Investigation Professionals, Proposed Restaurant Balboa Marina Newport Beach, California. April 8, Inc., 2014 2014. (Appendix G). Harbor Resources Harbor Resources Divisions, City of Newport Beach 2010. Harbor Area Division Management Plan April 2010 Final. Available online at: City of Newport http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc Beach, 2010 umentid=9186 KPC EHS,2014 KPC EHS Consultants, 2014. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment. June 2014. (Technical Appendix A). Kunzman Associates, Kunzman Associates, Inc, 2014. Balboa Marina West Traffic Impact Inc. Analysis. April 17, 2014 (Technical Appendix K). Magnuson-Stevens Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public Fishery Law 94-265 as amended through October 11, 1996. Available online at: Conservation and http://www.habitat.noaa.aov/odf/maanusonstevensact.odf Management Act, 1996 NOAH, 1991 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (Adopted July 31, 1991) Available online at: httr)://www.westcoost.fisheries.n000.gov/publications/habitat/californi a eelgrass mitigation/eelpolrevl l final.pdf OCALUC, 2008 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, 2008. Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17, 2008. Available on-line at: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/oluc/docs/JWA AELUP-April-17- 2008.pdf OCPW, 2013 Orange County Public Works, 2013. OC Watersheds: Newport Bay Watershed (web site). Accessed May 17, 2013. Available on-line at: https://medic.ocgov.com/gov/pw/watersheds/programs/ourws/npb/d efault.asp OCTA, 2011 Orange County Transportation Authority, 2011. 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program. 2011. Available on-line at: htto://www.octo.net/Plans-and-Programs/Congestion-Manaaement- Proaram/Overview/ Orange County, 1996 Orange County, 1996. Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange, Central & Coastal Subregion. July 17, 1996.Available on-line at: httip://www.naturereserveoc.org/documents.htm SCAG, 2001 Southern California Association of Governments, 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report. October 31, 2001. Available on-line at: httip://www.mwcoa.org/uploods/committee- 2415 Cited As Reference documents/bl5aX1 oa20091008155406.odf SCAQMD, 2008a South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Draft Guidance Document-Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. Available on-line at: httr)://www.aqmd.gov/cego/handbook/GHG/2008/oct22mt,q/GHGqui dance.odf SCAQMD, 2008b South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July 2008. Available on-line at: htto://www.agmd.gov/ceaa/handbook/ist/Method final.odf SCAQMD, 2013 South Coast Air Quality Management District,2013. Asbestos Removal and Demolition (web site). Accessed May 15, 2013. Available on-line at: httip://www.aqmd.aov/comiply/asbestos/asbestos.html UCSB, 2013 United States Census Bureau, 2013.State & County QuickFacts, Newport Beach (city), California (web site). Accessed May 16, 2013. Available on-line at: htto://auickfacts.census.aov/afd/states/06/0651 182.html Stantec, 2014 StStantec, 2014. Balboa Marina West Grading Plan. Wieland Acoustics, Wieland Acoustics, 2014. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed 2014. Marina West in the City of Newport Beach, CA. July 17, 2014 (Technical Appendix J). 240 8.0 Persons Contributing to IS/MND Preparation 8.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager; Community Development Department, Planning Division T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant and Water Supply Assessment Preparer) Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal Jerrica Harding, AICP, Senior Project Manger Eric Horowitz, GISP, Senior Graphics/GIS Manager Connie Anderson, Environmental Analyst 247 . I � ITustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA IN 923-003 P L A N N 1 N GG 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 f714.505.6361 MEMORANDUM To: Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach From: Tracy Zinn,Principal Re: BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS Date: September 23, 2014 As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consultant contracted to the City of Newport Beach for the Balboa Marina West project,you asked that I supply responses to the comment letters received by the City of Newport Beach related to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND). Responses to the substantive points of each letter are provided below. NOTE: There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat,which throws off the numbering sequence(i.e.,the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45,the second page 5-42 should be 5-46,etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason,page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given below for all page number references. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance,Inc. (CCRPA) August 18,2014 Summary of Comments This letter discusses concerns related to the potential discovery of significant archaeological resources and potential disturbance to humans remains.With respect to Mitigation Measure CR-1,the CCRPA suggests that ground disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. In addition, the CCRPA suggests that a mitigation measure be added to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code,pertaining to the discovery of human remains. The CCRPA also requests that if significant archaeological resources are discovered and archaeological data recovery excavations are implemented,the data recovery plan should include the preparation of non-technical report and public exhibit. The comment references the goals and policies of the National Park Service Historic Sites Act of 1935 and Section 1 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,concerning historic sites,buildings,and objects of national significance. Response In response to this comment,Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 has been revised to require that the construction contractor be trained to identify suspected archaeological resources;or,that a professional archaeological monitor be retained to monitor ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, native soils. Either circumstance would provide the same assurance that suspected resources are identified for evaluation. The IS/MND acknowledges the remote potential for Native American human remains to be unearthed during construction activity (IS/MND electronic version pp. 5-63, 64 and printed version pp. 5-60). Compliance with www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 242 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 J Page 2 of 14 P LANNIN California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5"Disturbance of Human Remains"is required by state law. The mandatory provisions of state law are not required to be repeated as mitigation measures. As specified by Mitigation Measure MM CR-1,a data recovery plan is required if a suspected archaeological resource is uncovered and a professional archaeologist determines that the resource is significant or potentially significant. The specifics of the data recovery plan will depend on the nature of the resource. Significant resources are required to be documented and placed in a public or private repository. Recovered resources are not required by state or federal law to be exhibited.The potential that any uncovered resource would rise to a level of national significance and be eligible for recognition under the National Park Service Historic Sites Act of 1935 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is highly unlikely and not reasonably foreseeable. The City has revised IS/MND Mitigation Measure MM CR-1.The revised mitigation measure is an amplification of the measure,is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California August 28,2014 Summary of Comments This letter states that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has no existing facilities or rights of way within the limits of the project site. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted City of Irvine Community Development August 28, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter states that the City of Irvine staff have received and reviewed the information provided and have no comments. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Jackson DeMareo Tidus Peckenpaugh September 9, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter requests a copy of the Project's grading plan cited in the IS/MND as"Stantec,2014."Additionally,the letter requests reference material for a statement in the IS/MND that the Project is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day(gpd) of domestic water. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS �f n' A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 3 of 14 P LANNIN Response The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department,Planning Division,provided the grading plan and requested reference material (filed in the Project's administrative record with the City of Newport Beach) to the commenter by e-mail on September 11,2014. IS/MND,Section 7,"References,"has been revised to include a citation for the water demand reference material. The City has added a reference citation to the IS/MND. The reference material was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND, is not new information, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)District 12 September 12,2014 Summary of Comments This letter identifies Caltrans as a commenting and responsible agency on the Project.Caltrans indicates that any work performed within the Caltrans right-of-way(East Coast Highway) will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans, and an encroachment permit and traffic control plan will be required. Response The Project proposes a small amount of physical disturbance in the Caltrans right-of-way at the Balboa Marina entrance driveway as shown on IS/MND Figure 3-11. In response to this comment,IS/MND Table 3-1 has been revised to list Caltrans as a responsible public agency,for issuance of an encroachment permit and approval of traffic control plan. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify Caltrans. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. State Clearinghouse September 16,2014 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environment documents pursuant to CEQA. This comment is noted. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 250 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 4 of 14 P LANNIN Still Protecting Our Newport(SPON) September 16,2014 Summary of Comments This letter expresses disagreement with the City's determination that a MND adequately addresses the impacts of Project due to proposed heights,visual impacts,parking impacts,ingress and egress from Pacific Coast Highway,and increased intensity of bay use. The letter requests that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Response The comment letter does not provide any detail or evidence to support the commentor's claim that the MND does not adequately address the Project's environmental effects. The IS/MND evaluates the Project and determines that all impacts would be less than significant or reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures applied. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the issue of proposed heights and visual impacts under the topic of"Aesthetics" (ISIMND Section 5.4.1; pp. 5-14 to 5-36). As concluded by IS/MND Section 5.4.1, although the Project would introduce a new marine commercial building up to 40 feet in height that could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations,implementation ofMitigation Measure MM AE-1 would ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in a manner that provides architecturally enhanced components while demonstrating compatibility with existing developed elements in the surrounding viewshed. Changes due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that occur in Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot and associated landscaping would not be prominently visible from off-site locations and would not represent a substantial change as compared to the existing condition. Six (6) visual simulations are included in the IS/MND as Figures 5-6 to 5-11 to support this conclusion. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, Project-related impacts associated with building height and visual quality would be reduced to below a level of significance. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the topic of parking and ingress and egress from East Coast Highway under the topic of"Transportation/Traffic"(IS/MND Section 5.4.16;electronic version pp. 5-112 to 5-124 and printed version pp. 5- 108 to 5-120). The Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips.These trips would increase traffic by less than 1%at intersections that experience congestion(defined as operating at a Level of Service D(LOS D)or worse during the morning/evening peak hours). The Project site's ingress and egress point is a driveway connecting to East Coast Highway and is not congested or projected to become congested. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.Regarding parking,the Project is required to supply an adequate number of parking spaces on the property consistent with the City's Municipal Code parking requirements. Also, the overall layout of the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. Parking and ingress and egress impacts will be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the topic of increased bay use intensity under the topic of"Land Use and Planning" (IS/MND Section 5.4-10; electronic version pp. 5-90 to 5-95 and printed version 5-86 to 5-91). The City of Newport Beach land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed Project include the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan,and Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Based on the information presented in the IS/MND and in its Appendix Ml, "General Plan Consistency Analysis" and Appendix M2, "Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis," the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is designated Recreational and Marine www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 251 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 14 P LANNIN Commercial(CM-A 0.00-0.30 FAR)by the Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project is consistent with those designations. Furthermore,Mitigation Measure LU-1 ensures that City review of future applications for a Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit will require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies.Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The IS/MND also evaluates the topic of bay use under the topics of"Aesthetics"(IS/MND Section 5.4-1;pp.5-14 to 5- 36),"Biological Resources(IS/MND Section 5.4.4;electronic version pp. 5-49 to 5-60 and printed version pp. 5-45 to 5-56)"Hydrology and Water Quality"(IS/MND Section 5.4-9;.electronic version pp.5-82 to 5-90 and printed version pp. 5-78 to 5-86), and "Land Use and Planning" (IS/MND Section 5.4-10; electronic version pp. 5-90 to 5-95 and printed version 5-86 to 5-91).Aesthetic changes in the bay due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that already occur in Newport Harbor and the new slips would not obstruct a scenic view or substantially degrade the existing visual quality or character of the area. Six(6)visual simulations are included in the IS/MND to support that conclusion. In regards to biological resource impacts, all impacts in the bay would be temporary and occur during the Project's construction period. This conclusion is supported by Technical Appendix B,"Marine Biological Assessment,Technical Appendix C, "Jurisdictional Delineation Report," Technical Appendix D, "Coastal Engineering Study, Technical Appendix E, "Impact Assessment for Proposed Project Alternatives," and Technical Appendix F, "Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report." Based on the conclusions of these extensive technical analyses,the Project's biological impacts would be limited to temporary impacts during its construction period and impacts to a small area of eelgrass. Mitigation Measures MM BR-1 to MM BR-6 are required to ensure that all biological resource impacts are reduced to below a level of significance. Similarly, temporary water quality impacts identified in the IS/MND associated with turbidity during water-side construction would be reduced to below a level of significance by Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-2. Potential operational-related water quality impacts are identified and addressed in Technical Appendix 1, "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan,"which potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by the preparation and implementation of a Marina Management Plan required by Mitigation Measure MM HWQ- 1. In conclusion, based on the IS/MND and all of the information contained in the IS/MND Technical Appendices and Project's administrative record,the City finds no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, an EIR is not required. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh September 17,2014 Summary of Comment 1 The letter claims that the IS/MND violates CEQA by failing to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Project together with the approved Back Bay landing and pending harbor water bus/taxi projects. Response The IS/MND contains an analysis of cumulative effects and considers the Back Bay Landing project. The IS/MND (electronic version pp. 5-131, 132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128) listed the cumulative projects that were considered in the analyses, but inadvertently only listed the approved projects and not the projects that are under www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 252 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS ISeptember 22, 2014 Page 6 of 14 P LANNIN consideration and not yet approved. Table 7 of the Project's traffic study(IS/MND Technical Appendix K,p.44)listed those projects as follows: Project Name Koll-Conexant Back Bay Landing Banning Ranch Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Hotel Newport Coast-TAZ 1 Newport Coast-TAZ 2 Newport Coast-TAZ 3 Newport Coast-TAZ 4 Although the list of these projects was inadvertently omitted from the IS/MND(electronic version pp. 5-131, 132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128), they were considered and evaluated in the IS/MND analyses and in the analyses provided in Technical Appendices A (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas), J (Noise), and K (Traffic). The IS/MND (electronic version p. 5-132 and printed version p. 128) has been revised accordingly to list the above projects. The "Water Bus/Taxi"project noted in this comment is speculative. Although the City has discussed the possibility of a water bus/taxi, an application has not been filed, its feasibility is uncertain,and a feasibility study is not yet complete. As such, it is not a"project" as defined by CEQA and is certainly not a reasonably foreseeable project that warrants consideration in a cumulative effects analysis. In addition,because of its speculative nature,there are no details to study at this time. The Back Bay Landing project and the proposed Balboa Marina West project are two distinct projects and are not the same project. The Back Bay Landing project proponent is Bayside Village Marina,LLC,whereas the Balboa Marina West project proponents are Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach. The Back Bay Landing Draft EIR was completed and circulated for public review in October 2013,whereas the Balboa Marina West project application was not on file with the City of Newport Beach until December 2013. Regarding the cumulative evaluation of aesthetics,the Back Bay Landing project is located on the north side of East Coast Highway whereas the Balboa Marina West project is proposed on the south side of East Coast Highway. The highway provides a clear visual separation. In addition,the Back Bay Landing EIR(SCH No.2012101003)concluded that the Back Bay Landing project's aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. The one building proposed on the Balboa Marina West property would have a less than significant potential to result in a significant,cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact,especially considering that the two projects are physically separated by a highway. The City has added the full list of evaluated cumulative projects to the IS/MND.The full list of projects was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND,is not new information,is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Summary of Comment 2 The comment letter suggests that the IS/MND should be revised to include additional information to analyze and mitigate the Project's temporary and permanent noise and vibration effects on residences on Linda Isle. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 253 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 7 of 14 P LANNIN Linda Isle is a private,gate-guarded community. As stated in the MND and noise study(Technical Appendix J),data gathered during the 2008/9 noise and vibration monitoring conducted by Anchor QEA at Linda Isle during the construction of the original Balboa Marina dock replacement project was used to analyze and access potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project.The 2008/9 Balboa Marina dock replacement project involved demolition,seawall repair,pile installation,dredging,and new marina construction and the same contractor,equipment, and construction techniques will be employed by the currently proposed Project. Therefore,additional measurements taken from Linda Isle were unnecessary. Based on the professional opinion of David Wieland,Principal Consultant of Wieland Acoustics having more than 30 years of experience in acoustical and vibration analyses,the acoustical study prepared by Wieland for the operation of the proposed marine commercial building,including a potential restaurant tenant,presents an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for protecting the residents of Linda Isle from significant noise level increases associated with the building's operation. As stated in the MND and the noise study(Technical Appendix J),a potentially significant impact is only anticipated if the proposed building has noise-generating activities on an outdoor patio and/or five entertainment. At this early stage of the planning process,it is not known whether the future building will have such noise-generating uses. In addition,the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known,including the location and design of any outdoor dining areas. The need for such measures will be addressed in a subsequent acoustical study that will be prepared once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the building tenants are known as required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1. Mitigation Measure MM N-1 specifies the requirement for the subsequent acoustical study and provides a performance measure(compliance with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020,and 20.48.909(E)of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code,which address noise.) The issue of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed marine commercial building is not addressed directly in the Wieland Acoustics study (Technical Appendix J); however, pedestrian activity was included in the analysis. The SoundPLAN model that was used to analyze parking lot noise levels(refer to Section 9.2.3 of Technical Appendix J)included a+3 dB correction to account for the noise of patrons in the parking lot. This model anticipated pedestrians walking throughout the entire parking area, including along the marina frontage. In addition,the issue of noise from activities in the parking lot was addressed in Section 9.2.3 of the Technical Appendix J. As indicated in the Wieland Acoustics study,it is anticipated that activities in the parking lot (vehicle movements,car doors opening and closing,patrons talking,etc.)will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards, as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Therefore,mitigation is not required or recommended. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed,reconfigured parking lot would not be a new introduced activity. Regarding the issue of vibration, Technical Appendix J indicates that there is always the potential risk for structural damage, even at relatively low vibration velocities. To address this, there was an extensive monitoring program conducted during the initial reconstruction of Balboa Marina in 2008/9. The monitoring report prepared by Anchor QEA(included as Enclosure 1 of Technical Appendix J)showed that there was no structural damage at any location in the Project's vicinity,including at Linda Isle.Because the waterside improvements associated with the proposed Balboa Marina West project will include fewer piles than with 2008/9 reconstruction, and because most of the piles will be installed farther away from Linda Isle than with the 2008/9 reconstruction, it is the professional opinion of Wieland Acoustics,based on substantial evidence from the 2008/9 monitoring program,that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West waterside improvements.The methodology that will be used to install the piles for the landside improvements will produce even less vibration than the methodology used to install the waterside improvements. Therefore, the MND appropriately concludes, with sufficient evidence from the extensive www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS /� 25 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS ISeptember 22, 2014 Page 8 of 14 P LANNIN monitoring that occurred in 2008/9, that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of Balboa Marina West. Attachment A to this Response to Comments document is an exhibit that was included in the final noise/vibration report prepared by Anchor QEA. The report documented the results of extensive noise and vibration monitoring during the 2008/9 reconstruction of Balboa Marina.The exhibit shows 16 locations for meter installations. The range of the monitoring activity is depicted by a blue line along the property seawalls extending along the entire frontage of properties facing Balboa Marina.Monitors and meters were re-positioned as required since equipment and construction activity changed location as work progressed. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant impacts. Summary of Comment 3 The comment letter requests revisions to the IS/MND to provide additional information and analysis of the Project's water and wastewater demands. Response IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 states that based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the proposed marine commercial building is expected to generate a utility demand for 3,395 gallons per day(gpd)of water and 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity. In response to this comment,Stantec was asked to provide more detail,and supply water and wastewater treatment demand calculations for the entirety of the Project site,without taking any credit for water demand or wastewater generation by existing uses on the property. Stantec's full memorandum, dated September 23,2014, is attached to this Response to Comments document. Stantec provided the following table, based on normal year water demand factors provided by Irvine Ranch Water District. The calculation of water demand for landscape areas is based the City's Landscape Ordinance and requirement for drought tolerant plant material pursuant to California Coastal Commission guidelines and the City of Newport Beach's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance(Municipal Code Chapter 14.17).Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions,where water demand reduction measures are required to be implemented.A normal-year water demand for the Project is calculated by Stantec to be 4,479 gpd. A dry-year 20%reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a usage of 3,583 gpd. Table 1 -Normal Year Annual Wafer Demands Use Area Water Demand Demand Factor (gpd) Restaurant&Patio 19,000 sf 175 gpd/l,0C0 s' 3,325 Yacht Brokerage Office 200 sf 175 gpd/UCC s` 35 Manna Restrooms 200 sF 175 gpd/1,000 sf 35 Subtotal Domestic Water Demands 19,400 sf 3,343 Landscape Area IrrWfion Demands 36.947 sf - 1,0840 Total Ncmtal Year Water Demands 4,479 Landscape area w ater demanO c Uaretl Weed an theciry of Newport B Landscape9Ninance for Emmared Annua water uie iEAwul.caicauri are atmcned. Stantec also provided the following table,which verifies that the figure of 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity demand cited in IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 is accurate. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 255 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 9 of 14 P LANNIN Table 2-Wastewater Generation Use Area Water Demand Demand Factor (gpd) Restaurant&Patio 9.00.7 sf 142 gpd/1,000 sf 2,698 Yacht Brokerage c3fflce 200 sf 142 gpd/T.000sf 28 a R Marinestrocros 200 sf 142 gpd/1,000 sf 28 Landscape Area 36,947 sf - - Total Wastewater GeneraWn 2,755 The conclusion given in the IS/MND that there is a sufficient water supply and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to service the proposed Project is accurate. As shown above,there is no change to the IS/MND's reported wastewater generation calculation of 2,755 gpd. IS/MND Section 5.4.17(electronic version p. 5-127 and printed version p. 123), has been updated to indicate a total normal year water demand of 4,479 gpd, including water demand for landscaping taking no credit for water used by existing uses on the property(including landscaping). Even through the Project's total water demand will be greater than the building-only demand reported in the IS/MND distributed for public review, the total demand would still result in a less than significant impact to the environment. The City's Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP)assumes build-out of the City in accordance with its General Plan, which designates the Project site as Marine Commercial(CM 0.3 FAR).The proposed Project is consistent with the CM 0.3 FAR designation,and thus its water demand is planned for bythe UWMP,and the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions,where water use reduction measures are required to be implemented. This year, the Governor of California issued Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, to campaign the requirement to reduce water demands by 20%. The proposed Project, like all development in the City, would be required to implement the necessary measures as would be required by the City of Newport Beach,Ordinance No.2009- 24. A 20% reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a daily usage of 3,583 gpd. This would be achievable through conservation efforts by the marine commercial building tenant, with the most savings due to restrictions on landscape watering days and durations imposed by the City. Accordingly,the Project would not result in the need to expand water entitlements.A less-than-significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City has revised IS/MND to identify the water demand for the entire Project site. The revision is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Summary of Comment 4 The comment letter requests additional information and analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts,particularly related to light, glare,and building height. Response The IS/MND contains an extensive evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts, including the effects of light,glare,and scenic view obstruction associated with building height. The existing Balboa Marina parking lot is tiered under existing conditions. Some portions of the parking lot are proposed to be raised in grade,and other portions are proposed to be lowered in grade. The parking spaces in the southern portion of the Project site would be lowered,not raised. Also,a portion of the raised area would be located immediately north of the proposed building and the building would block vehicle headlights from view of Linda Isle. In addition,a number of the proposed parking spaces will occur under the www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 2150 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 J Page 10 of 14 P LANNIN proposed marine commercial building,which also will effectively block light from vehicles parked in those spaces from view of Linda Isle. The portion of the parking lot that is proposed to be raised and within view of Linda Isle is designed to be positioned behind a landscape zone densely planted with trees. Refer to IS/MND Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan. As shown, a double row of trees is proposed in this landscape island. This landscaped island is a Project design feature, not a mitigation measure. Therefore, there is no potential for vehicle headlights in the reconfigured parking lot to result in a new source of substantial light or glare. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed,reconfigured parking lot and light from vehicle headlights would not be a new introduced activity. Regarding the conceptual design of the proposed building,the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known. Regardless,the IS/MND presents an extensive evaluation of the maximum permitted bulk and scale of the building, to a maximum height of 40 feet. Six (6) visual simulations were prepared, presented in the IS/MND, and analyzed for the building's potential to substantially block public views or result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The IS/MND concluded that the maximum building height of 40 feet would not substantially block public views or degrade visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However,because the specific architectural details of the building are not known at this time, Mitigation Measures MM AE-1 and AE-2 are imposed to ensure that when the future building design is reviewed by the City, it meets all of the applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Because impacts would be less than significant, there is no need to impose a height restriction on the structure beyond the height restriction already imposed by the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant light, glare, or aesthetic impacts. Summary of Comment 5 The letter suggests that the MND should be revised to provide additional information and clarify the project's grading impacts. Response The earthwork quantities presented in the IS/MND are accurate. A preliminary calculation conducted by Stantec and attached to the Project's grading plan estimates 3,653 cubic yards (cy)of cut and 7,860 cy of fill. The difference of 2,843 cy (needed fill) would be accomplished by approximately 1,300 cy of upland soils removed as part of the waterside development(IS/MND Subsection 3.2,p.3-6)and remainder by import. The import quantity using Stantec's calculations would be approximately 1,543 cy whereas the MND identifies 1,364 cy of import. The difference of 179 cy equates to approximately only nine dump truck trips, as one dump truck carnes 20 cy. The Project proponent(Irvine Company) owns many properties within one-mile of the Project site,from which the earth material would be hauled. The haul distance of one mile is therefore established, and accurate for analysis. Based on the construction characteristics of the Project disclosed in IS/MND Section 3.0,Project Description,the number of construction-related trips would be far less than the operational-related trips fully analyzed for the Project. Reference citations to the Stantec grading plans have been corrected in the IS/MND. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant impacts resulting from the hauling of earth material. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 25`Lj A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 11 of 14 P LANNIN Summary of Comment 6 The comment letter suggests that the MND must be revised and recirculated. Response CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 describes the conditions under which a MND that was circulated for public review is required to be re-circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states a lead agency is required to recirculate a MND when the document is substantially revised. A"substantial revision"is defined as a circumstance under which: a. Anew,avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or, b. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measure or revisions must be required. As summarized above and listed below in the "Errata Table of Corrections and Revisions," there were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis of the Balboa Marina West IS/NMD that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect requiring mitigation. In addition, based on comments received on the Balboa Marina West IS/MND,only minor,non-substantive revisions that merely clarify or amplify information presented in the IS/MND were required (as described below in the Errata Table of Corrections and Additions). Additionally, the IS/MND circulated for public review was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND were supported by evidence provided within the MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the IS/MIND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND does not need to be recirculated based on Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) September 17,2014 Summary of Comments This letter advises the City that OCSD will be studying realignment options for force mains and relocation options for sewer pump stations that may impact the Project site. The letter requests that the City of Newport Beach provide connection points and confirm that capacity is available in the local sewer collection system for the project.In addition, the letter notes that any construction dewatering operations must be permitted by OCSD before discharges begin. Response The OCSD's pending sewer force main and pump station study is acknowledged. The Project would not preclude OCSD from conducting its study or identifying the Project site as a potential location for relocated facilities. The City will work with OCSD as requested in a cooperative manner. The IS/MIND discloses that the Project would generate approximately 2,755 gallons per day of wastewater (electronic version p. 5-125 and printed version p. 5-121). Connection points to OCSD collection lines would be installed on-site by the Project with adequate conveyance capacity. OCSD review and approval of the water quality of any discharges and related measures is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 2152 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 12 of 14 P LANNIN Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) September 19,2014 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges that the CDFW does not object to the Project's eelgrass mitigation proposal and identifies current eelgrass transplantation requirements,which requires two authorizations instead of one. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. IS/MND Table 3-1 lists the CDFW and cites the requirement for a Letter of Authorization. The additional authorization for a Scientific Collecting Permit to remove eelgrass has been added to Table 3-1. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify CDFW's requirement for a Scientific Collecting Permit. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND,and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Orange County Parks September 22,2014 and September 17,2014 Summary of Comments This correspondence requests that Table 3-1 be revised to reflect the approval/permit action of securing a lease from the County to cover the area within County Tidelands and, in the case of private boat slips,pay fair market rent. Response IS/MND Table 3-1 lists the County of Orange and cites the requirements for an encroachment permit and State Lands Commission coordination. The additional requirement for a lease for the portion of the Project in County Tidelands has been added to Table 3-1. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify the County of Orange's requirement for a lease.The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MIND,and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Errata Table of IS/MND Corrections and Revisions NOTE:There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat,which throws off the numbering sequence(i.e.,the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45,the second page 5-42 should be 5-46,etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason,page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given in the table below for all page number references. Global References to"Project Applicant"has been changed to"Irvine Company"throughout the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 2.5 The IS/MND indicates that the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations Figure 2-5 for the property located north of the Project site, north of the East Coast Highway Figure 2-6 bridge, are Marine Commercial(CM). The City of Newport Beach acted on a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment(Back Bay Landing project) www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 13 of 14 P LANNIN on February 11, 2014,to change the designations for that property to Mixed Use Horizontal(MU-Hl and MUH,respectively). The land use change will not become effective until such time as the California Coastal Commission approves the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Table 3-1 Additional responsible public agencies and approvals have been added to Table 3-1: California Department of Transportation—Encroachment Permit and Traffic Control Plan County of Orange—Lease in County Tidelands California Department of Fish and Wildlife—Scientific Collecting Permit to remove ee crass. Letter of Authorization to place eelgrass back into the environment. MM AE-1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM AE-1: Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE-2 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM AE-E: Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission,the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non-reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. MM CR-1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM CR-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the City of Newport Beach shall be provided evidence that the construction contractor is trained to identify suspected archaeological resources;or,a professional archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor ground-disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed native soils. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the City shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan(s): MM LU-1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM LU-1: The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to ensure compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. Section The following revision has been made: 5.4.17(d) The marine commercial building proposed for the land-side portion of the Project site is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per da ( d)of domestic water, www.tbplanningxom PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 200 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND:RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 22, 2014 Page 14 of 14 P LANNIN assuming a 19,000 s.f.restaurant,200 s.f.yacht brokerage office,and 200 s.f.marina restrooms(Stantee 2014a). Landscape irrigation demands are calculated to be 1,084 gpd, for a total Project water demand of 4.479 gpd in a normal year. In a dry year, water use reductions would be required pursuant to City Ordinance No.2009-24. A 20%water use reduction in a dry year would total 3,583 gpd. (Stantec 2014b) Electronic Page 5-132 has been revised to be consistent with the complete list of cumulative projects Version that were evaluated for cumulative impacts(Table 7 of Technical Appendix K)and should Page 5-132 have been included in the list published in the IS/MND: Printed Version Project Name Page 5-128 Koll-Conexant Back Bay Landing Banning Ranch Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Hotel Newport Coast-TAZ 1 Newport Coast-TAZ 2 Newport Coast-TAZ 3 Newport Coast-TAZ 4 Section 7.0 Reference citations have been added. Stantec 2014a — Stantec, 2014x, Balboa Marina West — Water & Wastewater Generation Estimate.May 13,2014. Stantec 2014b—Stantec, 2014b,Balboa Marina West—Draft Initial Study/MND— Response to Comments—Project Water and Wastewater Demands. September 23, 2014. Attachments 1. StanteeMemo:Balboa Marina West—Draft Initial Study/MND—Response to Comments—Project Water and Wastewater Demands 2. Wieland Associates Letter: Response to Comment Regarding Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach 3. Anchor QEA: Monitoring Locations www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 201 ® Stantec Memo To: Pat Osborne From: Jeff Dunn Irvine CA Office Irvine, CA Office File: 2042 Date: September 23, 2014 Reference: Balboa Marina West- Draft Initial Study/MND- Response to Comments-Project Water and Wastewater Demands The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to address the Draft Initial Study/MND review comments regarding the water and wastewater demands estimated for the proposed project. Normal Year Water Demands The Project water demands are estimated based on the specific land uses proposed for the project, and based on the water demand factors as previously used. The water demand factors provided by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) are to be used to estimate normal year conditions for rainfall and water use conditions. (Table attached) These factors remain applicable in determining normal year water demands for the project. Table 1 below shows the water demands specific for each land use. The project is estimated to use 4,479 gpd based on normal year conditions. Table 1 - Normal Year Annual Water Demands Use Area Water Demand Demand Factor (gpd) Restaurant & Patio 19,000 sf 175 gpd/1,000 sf 3,325 Yacht Brokerage Office 200 sf 175 gpd/1,000 sf 35 --------------------....................................................................................---- Marina Restrooms 200 sf 175 gpd/1,000 sf 35 Subtotal Domestic Water Demands 19,400 sf 3,395 Landscape Area Irrigation Demands 36,947 sf 1,084a Total Normal Year Water Demands 4,479 a Landscape area water demand calculated based on the City of Newport Beach Landscape Ordinance for Estimated Annual Water Use(EAWU).Calculations are attached. The landscape areas are proposed to be drought tolerant in compliance with Coastal Commission guidelines and the City of Newport Beach's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code: Chapter 14.17). Demands for the landscape areas in Table 1 are determined based on the City of Newport Beach's Landscape Ordinance. (see attached) Dry Year Water Demands Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where demand mitigation measures are required to be implemented. This year, the Governor of California issued Design with community In mind jd c'.\users\jdunn\desktop\mem_balboa_marina tech_memo_20140923.dock 202 ® Stantec September 23, 2014 Pat Osborne Page 2 of 2 Reference: Balboa Marina West- Draft Initial Study/MND-Response to Comments-Project Water and Wastewater Demands Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, to campaign the requirement to reduce water demands by 20%. The proposed project to reduce its water usage would be required to implement the necessary mitigation measures as would be required by the City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% reduction in water usage for the project would result in a daily usage of 3,583 gpd for the project. This would primarily be achieved through conservation efforts by the restaurant, with the most savings due to restrictions on landscape watering days and durations by the City. Wastewater Generation Wastewater generation is based on the land uses proposed and local interior water use factors provided by IRWD. Table 2 is provided to show the uses proposed and estimated wastewater generated by each use. The total wastewater generated by the project is proposed to be 2,755 gpd. Table 2 -Wastewater Generation Use Area Water Demand Demand Factor (gpd) Restaurant & Patio 19,000 sf 142 gpd/1,000 sf 2,698 Yacht Brokerage Office 200 sf 142 gpd/1,000 sf 28 Marina Restrooms 200 sf 142 gpd/1,000 sf 28 Landscape Area 36,947 sf - Total Wastewater Generation 2,755 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Jeff Dunn Senior Project Manager, Environment Phone: (949) 923-6974 Fax: (949) 923-6121 jeff.dunn@sta ntec.com Attachment: Table 3-1 Land Use and Water Use Factors (September 2012) Landscape Area Water Demand Calculations Design with community in mind id c\users\idunn\desktop\mem-balboa_marina_tech-memo_20140923 docx 203 Table 3-1 Land Use and Water Use Factors(September 2012) Code Lantl Use Description Land Use Local Demands Irrigation Demands Average Density Density Units Local-Interior Local-Exterior Total Local %Irrigated Area Irrigation Factor 1100 Residential GaVOU/Day GoVACIei 1111 Rural Density-Orange 0.3 dulacre 270 185 455 0% 1,000 1112 Rural Density-Irvine 0.3 dulacre 250 750 i,000 5% 2,800 1115 Rural Density-County 0.26 dulaue 265A. 8400 1,105 5% 2,800 1121 Estate Density 1.2 dulacre 2650 3400 605 5% 2,800 1122 Eves,Density 0.5 dulacre 225 IN 405 5% 2,800 1126 Estate Density 0.5 dulacre 265.0 4600 725 7% 3,000 1131 Low Density 4 du/acre 255.0 340.0 505 8% 2,500 1132 Low Density 3 dulacre 250 200 450 16% 2,800 1133 Low Density 1 dulacre 290 220 510 17% 2,800 1134 Low Density PC 4.5 dulacre 450 600 1,250 17% 2,800 1135 Suburban Density 9.25 du/acre 150 90 240 15% 2,500 1136 Low Density 3 dulacre 225 140 365 20% 2,800 1141 Low-Medium Density 105 dulacre 235.0 1450 380 15% 2;500 1146 Low-Medium Density 11 dulacre 205 150 355 10% 3,000 1153 MediumLow Density 275 dulacre 300.0 240.) 540 10% 2800 1161 Medium Density 195 dulacre 230 170 400 15% 2,800 1162 Medium Density 7.5 dulacre 200 100 300 15% 2;800 1163 Medium Density 5 dulacre 250 220 470 20% 2,800 1164 Medium Density PC 118 dulacre 170 ta5 275 15% 2,800 1166 Medium Density 7.5 dulacre 150 70 220 15% 2,800 1172 Medium-High Density 17.5 dulacre 135 40 175 11 2,800 1175 Urban Density 29 dulacre 130 40 170 20% 2,800 1176 Medium-111,h Density 17.5 dulacre 145 70 215 17% 21500 1182 High Density 32.5 dulacre 140 20 160 20% 2,800 1183 High Density 12.25 dulacre 115 10 125 20% 3200 1184 High Density PC 174 dulacre 115 10 125 15% 2,800 1186 High Density 32.5 dulacre 115 10 125 20% 2,800 1191 High Rise Density Congo 35 dulacre 135 35 170 20% 2,800 1192 High Rise Density-Irvine 40 dulacre 65 18 83 20% 2,800 1200 commercial GaVKSFDaV GaVAcredis 1210 General Office 20 ksli 62 9 71 20% 2,500 1221 Community Commercial 9 ksllacre 142 33 175 20% 3,500 1222 Regional Commercial 10 ksflacre 130 10 140 20% 3;500 1223 Community Commercial-High Density 21 ody.. 0.0 0.0 0 100% a 1230 Commercial Recreation 8 ksllacre 41 20 61 30% 3,000 1235 Hotel 45 roomslacre 110 50 160 30% 2,800 1240 Instuticnal 8 ksllacre 30 15 45 30% 2,750 1244 Hospital 9 ksllacre 165 65 230 30% 2850 1260 School 10 kaflaore 20 fic 280 50% 2,500 1261 UCI 10 ksflacre 215 15 230 40% 3,800 1273 Military Air Field 0 katla. 0 0 a o% 0 1290 Hotel 45 roomslacre 110 50 160 30% 2,800 1300 Industrial 9091 600 25 625 20% 2,800 1310 Industrial-Light 16 ksflacre 60 to 70 20% 2,800 1320 Industrial-Heavy 25 ksflacre 2,0000 16 2.018 20% 2,800 Onan Soace and Other G,Rxcre/Dav 1411 Alrpods 0 acrelacre 0 0 a 0% 0 1413 Freeways B Major Road a acrelacre 0 a a o% a 1820 Community Park 1 i crelebre 0 0 a 88% 2200 1830 Regional Park t acrelacre 0 o a 75% 2,200 1840 Fuel Mad?radon Zone 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 100% 1,000 1850 W,Idlifa Preserve 0 acrelacre 0 o a 0% 0 188D Open Space(R.) 0 suefacre 0 0 0 0% 0 1900 vacant 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 0% 0 41x0 Water 0 0 0 a 0% 0 9100 Mixed Use a 0 a a 100% 0 9101 Central Park Land Use 0 acrelacre s 0 0 100% 0 WOO AAgriculture aorshecre GaVilcrarDav 2100 Low-Inigated AG Potable 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 80% 1,800 2110 Low-Irrigated AG Untreated 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 80% 1,800 2120 Low-Irrigated AG Recycled 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 80% I,BOO 2200 High-Irrigated AG Potable 1 acrelacre 0 a a 90% 3,100 2210 High-IMgaled AO Unleaded 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 81 3,100 2220 High-Ingation AG Recycled 1 schri 0 0 0 80% 3,100 "i iai PM�etl'.09IW/1] tehn,,ao„a...seNt,sonnM.4<aalr'. 204 Landscape Area Water Demand Calculations Estimated Annual Water Use (EAWU) is based on the calculation: EAWU =(Et,x KL x LA * 0.62)/IE, where: Eto= 43.2 inches, Assumed as Laguna Beach Evapotranspiration KL= 0.3 Landscape Coefficient for low water use planting LA= 36947 Land Area, sf IE= 0.75 Irrigation Efficiency EAWU 395,835 gallons per year 1,084 gallons per day 2615 WIELAND WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. ACOUSTICS 3100 Airway Avenue, Suite 102 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 noise Is vibration Cansnitants Tel: 949.474.1222 www . wieIandacoustics . com September 19, 2014 Project File 13.032.00 Ms. Shawna Schaffner CAA Planning, Inc. 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Subject: Response to Comment Regarding the Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach References: 1. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Balboa Marina West in the City of Newport Beach, CA. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.July 17, 2014. 2. Letter re. Balboa Marina West Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration. Jackson I DeMarco ITidus I Peckenpaugh. September 17, 2014. Dear Ms. Schaffner: The following are provided in response to some of the comments under Item 2 in the referenced letter from Jackson I DeMarco ITidus I Peckenpaugh regarding the environmental noise study for the Balboa Marina West project. 1. It is our opinion that the recommended acoustical study for the operation of the restaurant is an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for protecting the residents of Linda Isle.As indicated in the environmental noise study, a potentially significant impact is only anticipated if the restaurant has an outdoor patio and/or live entertainment. At this early stage of the planning process it is not known whether the future restaurant will have either an outdoor patio or live entertainment.Therefore, it is not appropriate to burden the project with specific mitigation measures such as sound attenuating windows and restrictions on activities that may or may not occur.The need for such measures is properly addressed in an acoustical study that will be prepared once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the restaurant are known. 2. The issue of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed restaurant is not addressed directly in the environmental noise study; however, it was included in the analysis.The SoundPLAN model that was used to analyze parking lot noise levels (refer to Section 9.2.3 of the environmental noise study) included a +3 dB correction to account for the noise of patrons in the parking lot.This model anticipated pedestrians walking throughout the entire parking area, including along the marina frontage. 1 26� WIELAND CAA PLANNING, INC. ACOUSTICSBalboa Marina West Response to Comments nesse a mnnnan consuRome Project File 13.032.00- FINAL 3. The issue of noise from activities in the parking lot was addressed in Section 9.2.3 of the referenced environmental noise study. As indicated in the study, it is anticipated that activities in the parking lot(vehicle movements, car doors opening and closing, patrons talking, etc.)will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards. Therefore, mitigation is not required or recommended. 4. As indicated in the referenced environmental noise study, in general there is always the potential risk for structural damage, even at relatively low vibration velocities.To address this, there was an extensive monitoring program conducted during the construction of the original Balboa Marina project.The monitoring report prepared by Anchor QEA(included as Enclosure 1 of the referenced environmental study)showed that there was no structural damage at any location in the project's vicinity, including at Linda Isle. Because the waterside improvements associated with the Balboa Marina West project include fewer piles than with the original project, and because most of them will be installed farther away from Linda Isle than with the original project, it is reasonable to conclude that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West waterside improvements.The methodology that will be used to install the piles for the landside improvements will produce even less vibration than the methodology used to install the waterside improvements.Therefore, it is also reasonable to conclude that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West landside improvements. Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with acoustical consulting services. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at 949.474.1222. Sincerely, WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. David L. Wieland Principal Consultant www.wielandacoustics.com 2 September 19, 2014 207 ,�. Mamma Gina's Rcstaurant Alk, w .�.'. s�251�-','• Q 3-Thirty-3 •.. � • tl • _j' r 'a+} w Restaurant 1 e ftl a. v333' /r1 aI Greystone Group BuildingF a 700 101 102 f7o3 g� 90 91 92 3 '96 106 g Bg _ $5 88 y 105• 3 l 106. F j gx 707 all 9 1 8 - $OURCE:Aerial from coops,Earth Pro 2007. • Pile TIN Meter Installation Monitored Homes Include the Following: •Crack Plate Installations-Existing cracks are monitored for movement e 4, Vibration Monitor Noise and •Pile Tue Meters-Piles are monitored for movement Y Range of Deployment •survey locations-Points along the home.pati%and seawall are surveyed to monitor for movement •Noise and Vibration Monitoring-Noise and vibration monitors are deployed as work progresses. 0 pp ± ®3 EntryAuthoritation Received Locations determined according to the location of the ongoing work. (Home address indicated by Number) •Interior and Exterior Photo and Video surveys Figure 2 ANCHOR Monitoring Locations OEA Balboa Marina Dock Replacements Pir ject Attachment No. PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis 209 Attachment PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis TABLE 1 Applicable General Plan/CLUP Land Use Policies Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. For bay-fronting properties that are designated as CV or CM, encourage CLUP marine-related and visitor-serving Consistent. The proposed restaurant is with this 2.1.4-4 retail, restaurant, hotel/motel, policy. institutional, and recreational uses. Give priority to coastal-dependent Consistent. Although not part of the current CLUP uses over other uses on or near the application, the project site includes 107-slip Balboa 2.4.1-1 shoreline. Marina, a coastal-dependent use. The City has authorized the Balboa Marina West Consistent. The marina restrooms are a coastal- When appropriate, accommodate related use, as it dependent on a coastal-dependent CLUP coastal-related developments within development, the Balboa Marina. The existing 2.4.1-2 reasonable proximity to the coastal- coastal-related use (yacht brokerage office) will be dependent uses they support. relocated to 341 Bayside Drive, which is located on the waterfront and in close proximity to the Balboa Marina. Discourage re-use of properties that result in the reduction of coastal- dependent commercial uses. Allow Consistent. The proposed project allows the re-use of CLUP the re-use of properties that assure the project site without a reduction of existing coastal- 2.4.1-3 coastal-dependent uses remain, dependent uses (Balboa Marina) and facilitate the especially in those areas with expansion of coastal-dependent uses (Balboa Marina adequate infrastructure and parcels West Expansion). suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project. Harbor and Waterfront Uses - Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Consistent. The proposed project will facilitate the LU 2.5 Beach and provide needed support expansion of Balboa Marina, including a new public for recreational and commercial dock, and provide support uses in the form of the boaters, visitors, and residents, with restaurant and marina restrooms. appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. PC 4-1 270 Attachment PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis Consistent. The proposed project will not negatively impact and will complement the existing coastal- Design and site new development to dependent use (Balboa Marina) by providing a food avoid impacts to existing coastal- service use to the project site. When operated in dependent and coastal-related conjunction of the proposed valet parking developments. When reviewing management plan, including off-site parking, parking proposals for land use changes, give will be sufficient to serve the proposed restaurant, CLUP full consideration to the impact on existing marina, and the planned marina expansion. 2.4.1-4 coastal-dependent and coastal- related land uses including not only The proposed project will enhance the future coastal- LU 3.5 the proposed change on the subject dependent use (the planned public dock by providing property, but also the potential to vertical access from the nearest public road (East limit existing coastal-dependent and Coast Highway). coastal-related land uses on The existing coastal-related use (yacht brokerage adjacent properties. office) will be relocated to 341 Bayside Drive, which is located on the waterfront and in close proximity to the Balboa Marina. Maintain the Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use category and allow CM uses in the Consistent. The proposed project will allow the CLUP Mixed Use land use categories (MU- Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use 2.4.1-5 V, MU-H, and MU-W) in areas on or category to be maintained on the project site. near the bay to encourage a continuation of coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses. TABLE 2 Applicable General Plan/CLUP Development Design Policies Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. Implement building design and siting regulations to protect coastal resources and public access through Consistent. The proposed project conforms to the CLUP height, setback, floor area, lot height, setback, and floor area limits of the CM 2.2.2-4 coverage, building bulk, and other property development standards of Zoning District. the Zoning Code intended to control building placement, height, and bulk. Require that new development within Consistent. The proposed restaurant building existing commercial districts centers provides modulation of building masses, elevations, LU 5.2.1 and corridors complement existing and rooflines to promote visual interest; architectural uses and exhibit a high level of treatments are provided on all accessory structures. architectural and site design... PC 4-2 2�1 Attachment PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such Consistent. The Linda Isle residential community is techniques as: Incorporation of located south of the project site across the channel. landscape, decorative walls, Architectural treatments are carried over on the enclosed trash containers, southern elevation facing Linda Isle; a 3-foot-high LU 5.2.2 downward focused lighting fixtures, landscaped area is provided between the parking lot and comparable buffering and the southern waterfront to provide screening; the elements; Attractive architectural project will be conditioned to screen and direct treatment of elevations facing the l residential neighborhood; Location of lighting away from residential areas. automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility LU 5.6.1 within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials Consistent. The proposed project provides a that unusually impact the design contemporary architectural design and color scheme character and quality of their location that is compatible with surrounding development. such as abrupt changes in scale, LU 5.6,2 building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent Consistent. The project will be conditioned to screen LU 5.6.3 spillover onto adjoining properties or and direct lighting away from residential areas. significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. PC 4-3 272 Attachment PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis TABLE 3 Applicable General Plan/CLUP Coastal Hazards Policies Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. Review all applications for new Consistent. The project site is not located within a CLUP development to determine potential coastal hazard area. A coastal hazards analysis was 2.8.1-1 threats from coastal and other prepared assumes the economic life of the proposed hazards. development at 85 years and a maximum sea level rise at year 2100 (85 year economic life) of 5.5ft. With the current maximum sea level of 7.0ft. MLLW (City of Newport Beach MLLW datum NGVD 29) the maximum sea level rise through the economic life of Design and site new development to the project would be an elevation of approximately CLUP avoid hazardous areas and minimize 12.5ft. MLLW (7.0ft. + 5.5 ft.). The conclusion is that 2.8.1-2 risks to life and property from coastal sea level rise presents no risk to the planned and other hazards. structures, with the sole exception of the private boater restroom which could be subject to periodic flooding in approximately 50 to 60 years. Construction materials that withstand water could be used for the private boater restroom so that loss of that structure could be avoided or mitigated. TABLE 4 Applicable General Plan/CLUP Transportation and Parking Policies Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. CLUP Maintain and enhance existing public 2.9.1-6 water transportation services and Consistent. The proposed project will facilitate the encourage and provide incentives for development of, and provide vertical access to, a HB 6.5 expansion of these uses and land new public dock. support facilities. Employment, retail, and entertainment districts and coastal recreational areas should be well served by public transit and easily CLUP accessible to pedestrians and 2.9.1-8 bicyclists. Streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and recreational trails (including the Coastal Trail) should Consistent. The proposed project will provide vertical be designed and regulated to access to a planned public dock, a connection to encourage walking, bicycling, and future accessways in the planned Back Bay Landing transit ridership. project, and bicycle racks. CLUP Maintain, expand, and encourage 2.9.2 1 the use of bikeways and trails as alternative circulation routes. Design and site new development to CLUP provide connections to existing and 2.9.2-4 proposed bikeways and trail systems. PC 4-4 2j 3 Attachment PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis Require new non-residential developments with floor areas of CLUP 10,000 square feet or more to 2.9.2-6 provide bicycle racks for use by customers. Encourage smaller non- residential developments to provide such facilities, when feasible. Consistent. The proposed project will provide Site and design new development to standard parking configurations and employ the CLUP avoid use of parking configurations Proposed valet parking management plan during 2.9.3-1 or parking management programs Projected parking shortfalls in evening hours (7:00 that are difficult to maintain and p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and valet hours can be adjusted CE 7.1.8 enforce. based on parking conditions. The valet parking management program will use parking areas owned b and under the control of the applicant. Continue to require new development to provide off-street parking sufficient to serve the Consistent. Asite-specific parking study indicates CLUP approved use in order to minimize that parking demand will be more than the code- 2.9.3-2 impacts to public on-street and off- required number of spaces. The projected parking street parking available for coastal shortfall during evening hours evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) will be partially offset by a valet access. parking management program and off-site parking. Approve no application for a Therefore, the proposed project provides sufficient CLUP modification or waiver of off-street off-street parking to serve the proposed use without 2.9.3-9 parking requirements that are found impacts to public parking. to impact public parking available for coastal access. TABLE 5 Applicable General Plan/CLUP Coastal Access Policies Policy Policy Consistency Analysis No. Protect, and where feasible, expand Consistent. The proposed project with expand and and enhance public access to and enhance public access by facilitating the CLUP development of, and providing vertical access to, a 3.1.1-1 along the shoreline and to beaches, new public dock and by providing a connection to coastal waters, tidelands, coastal future accessways in the planned Back Bay Landing parks, and trails. project. Require new development in waterfront commercial areas to provide public access easements to and along the waterfront. Where CLUP appropriate, integrate public access Consistent. The proposed project will provide a 3.1.1-7 easements into the project designs, restaurant with a waterfront dining area and vertical such as restaurants with outdoor access to a new public dock. waterfront dining areas and boarding areas for charter and excursion vessels. PC 4-5 274 Attachment PC 4 General Plan/CLUP Consistency Analysis Require a direct dedication or an Consistent. The project will not cause or contribute to Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an adverse public access impacts. The proposed easement for lateral public access restaurant is a visitor-serving use and will not affect for all new shorefront development the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving causing or contributing to adverse commercial recreational facilities designed to public access impacts. Such enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation CLUP dedication or easement shall extend and other priority uses specified in Sections 30222 3.1.1-13 from the limits of public ownership and 30223 of the California Coastal Act or the use (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to and capacity of the identified access and recreation a fixed point seaward of the primary opportunities. extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of The proposed project design will not create revetment, vertical face of seawall, obstruction that would block or impede public access dri line of deck, or toe of bluff). to and along the sea or shoreline. The project will Require a direct dedication or an provide new public access opportunities in the form Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an of vertical access to a new public dock and by easement for vertical access in all providing a connection to future accessways in the new development projects causing planned Back Bay Landing project. or contributing to adverse public The proposed project design will not negatively access impacts, unless adequate impact public access to public views to the ocean, CLUP access is available nearby. Vertical harbor, bay, or other scenic coastal areas. 3.1.1-14 accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two-way pedestrian The proposed project does not have any passage and landscape buffer and characteristics, which, individually or cumulatively, should be sited along the border or are likely to diminish the public's use of the ocean, side property line of the project site harbor, bay, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, or away from existing or proposed sloughs, beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal development to the maximum bluffs. feasible extent. PC 4-6 275 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��� Attachment No. PC 5 Technical Noise Study 277 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��g WIELAND 0Airway ACOUSTICS, INC. 3100 Airway Avenue, Suite 102 Costa Mesa, CA 2 ACOUSTICS Tel: 949.474.1222 noise a vibration consultants www.wielandacoustics.com Technical Noise Study forthe Proposed Landside Development at Balboa Marina in the City of Newport Beach, CA Project File 13.032.01 October 26, 2015 Prepared for: CAA Planning 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Prepared by: David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nolo a uicre uen consul tams Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................2 3 NOISE STANDARDS..............................................................................................................5 3.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN.....................................................................................5 3.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE..................................................................................6 4 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................7 5 PROJECT-GENERATED NOISE LEVELS.....................................................................................8 6 PRELIMINARY NOISE CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................12 7 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................13 List of Tables Table 3-1. City of Newport Beach Noise Standards...............................................................................5 Table 4-1. Summary of Noise Measurements.......................................................................................7 Table 5-1. Summary of Outdoor Dining Activity Measurements at Cucina Enoteca ..........................10 Table 5-2. Summary of Estimated Project Noise Levels with Recorded Music...................................11 Table 5-3. Summary of Estimated Project Noise Levels with Live Entertainment..............................11 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Location of the Project Site.................................................................................................3 Figure2-2. Site Plan...............................................................................................................................4 Figure 4-1. Noise Measurement Locations............................................................................................8 List of Appendices Appendix I. Noise Measurements Appendix Il. Project Noise Level Analysis www.wielandacoustics.com 1 October 26, 2015 220 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements seise a mermen conau¢enrr Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL 1 Executive Summary A technical noise study has been conducted to determine whether noise resulting from the operation of the proposed landside improvements at Balboa Marina will exceed the City of Newport Beach's noise standards.These landside improvements include the construction of a restaurant with an outdoor patio seating and dining area on its west side, the construction of a stand-alone restroom building in the parking lot for use by the private Balboa Marina patrons, and reconfiguration of the main parking lot to accommodate 225 standard parking spaces and 30 valet- stacked parking spaces. Additional parking for 42 vehicles will be provided in the existing commercial area abutting the project site to the east.The proposed restaurant will also include retractable walls on the west side of the building. The proposed Project will introduce several new noise sources into the study area.These include outdoor dining activities, indoor dining activities, live or recorded music inside the restaurant, people congregating in the outdoor waiting area, and parking lot activities.The proposed Project will also include several rooftop mechanical equipment items such as air conditioning units, kitchen exhaust fans, etc. However, because the restaurant building has not yet been designed,the mechanical equipment items have not yet been identified and have not been included in this study. The results of the analysis indicate that the noise levels generated by the Project will comply with the City's daytime standards of 55 dBA at the nearby residential properties and 65 dBA at the nearby commercial properties. In general, it is also estimated that the Project will comply with the City's nighttime standards of 50 dBA at the nearby residential properties and 60 dBA at the nearby commercial properties, except at some of the residences on Linda Isle when recorded music occurs inside the proposed restaurant(i.e.,typical operating conditions) and the retractable walls on the west side of the building are open. To ensure compliance with the City's quantitative noise standards, and to minimize audibility at the property lines, public rights-of-way, and nearby residences, several preliminary noise control recommendations have been identified.These include: 1. Architectural design features such as using 1"-thick insulated glass assemblies for all windows and retractable walls; replacing the retractable wall in the dining area on the southwest corner of the proposed restaurant building with fixed windows or installing a lock on the retractable wall so that it cannot be opened at any time; using''/<"-thick glass entry doors that are well sealed and kept closed when not in use; using dual-glazed, inoperable, skylights; and constructing relatively high density exterior wall and roof systems. 2. Outdoor patio wall on the west and south sides of the restaurant that is at least 42" high, and with minimum gaps. 3. Administrative controls as required by the City of Newport Beach.These include limited hours of operation for certain activities such as receiving deliveries and using trash receptacles, and posting signs within the restaurant and parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum. www.wielandacoustics.com 1 October 26, 2015 221 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nriu a uicre uen consul tante Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL Final noise control recommendations should be prepared during the final engineering stage of the design, and should be based on final site plans,architectural plans, and mechanical equipment plans. 2 Introduction / Project Description The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the potential noise impacts associated with the operation of the proposed landside improvements at Balboa Marina in Newport Beach. Figure 2-1 identifies the location of the Project site.A site plan is provided in Figure 2-2. Referring to the figures,the Project will include the following elements: O Demolition of an existing 1,200 square-foot structure located at 201 East Coast Highway that houses a yacht brokerage and marina restrooms. o Construction of a restaurant with a gross building area of 14,252 sq. ft. and a net public area of approximately 8,230 sq.ft. An outdoor patio seating and dining area is restricted to the west side of the restaurant. No seating or dining will be allowed on the south side of the restaurant facing Linda Isle. Upon entering the restaurant, patrons will have access to an outdoor waiting area on the north side facing East Coast Highway. No food or beverage will be served in the waiting area. o Construction of a stand-alone restroom building in the parking lot for use by the private Balboa Marina patrons. Access will be restricted to marina lessees and guests.The restroom building will replace the existing restroom facilities located in the building that currently houses the yacht brokerage office. O Reconfiguration of the main parking lot to accommodate 225 standard parking spaces and 30 valet-stacked parking spaces. Additional parking for 42 vehicles will be provided in the existing commercial area abutting the project site to the east. This report does not include an assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts associated with construction of the landside improvements, nor does it include an assessment of potential noise impacts on the proposed restaurant from traffic on East Coast Highway.These issues were analyzed and assessed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Balboa Marina West development. www.wielandacoustics.com 2 October 26, 2015 222 s� t 00 o o' s i �'4 7 F Olt t G � o 4 s Zia a < E N � m o � a o a m f�. 1 Y � L N � • C � a a • v E eo a 0 c O c ,o • O 0 0 d V O. Y 0 Q • d C m N o N • W L 7 o pry C m • -o C N c0 pp O 2 a Y 1 O N V H 0 ¢ 1 d. N K 0_ � C v � v° °a O = ( m 3 v a 0 F 1 Oaf O ¢ o -O N bo 1 d ar c 0 g �_ 1 CL i U) : a V w0 ` 3 � � � �` 0 ems 7 ��'i tbo a 3 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nolo a uicre uen consul tams Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL 3 Noise Standards 3.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Policy N1.1 of the City's General Plan identifies the following noise standards for various land uses: Table 3-1. City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Ilowable Noise Levels, L.,(dBA) Land Use Categories Interior Exterior',b 7 AM to PM 7 AM to 10 PM Categories Usesr r • 7 AM Single Family, Two Family,Multiple 45 • 40 55 • 50 Residential Family(Zone 1) Residential Portions of Mixed Use 45 40 60 50 Developments(Zone III) Commercial Commercial (Zone II) N/A N/A 65 60 Industrial Industrial.or Manufacturing(Zone IV) N/A N/A 70 70 Schools, Day Care Centers, Institutional Churches, Libraries,Museums, 45 40 55 50 Health Care Institutions(Zone p a. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. b. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property,to exceed either of the following: • The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15-minute period; • A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time(measured using A-weighted slow response). • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property,if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Policy N1.7 requires that commercial/entertainment uses limit hours and/or require attenuation if they are adjacent to residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to minimize excessive noise to these receptors. Policy N2.3 limits the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards. Policy N4.1 requires the City to enforce the interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table 3- 1, above, and in the Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating,ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. Policy N4.2 requires that new uses such as restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise www.wielandacoustics.com 5 October 26, 2015 225 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nriu a uicre uen consul tante Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table 3-1, above, and the City's Municipal Code. Policy N4.3 requires that new commercial developments abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent possible. 3.2 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.28 of the Municipal Code specifies that live entertainment establishments must provide sufficient sound absorbing insulation so that noise generated inside the premises is not audible anywhere on adjacent property or public right-of-way or within any other building or other separate unit within the same building. Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code identifies the City's noise standards for various land uses and activities.These are identified in Table 2-1, above. Occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows, sporting and entertainment events are specifically exempted from compliance with the noise standards, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the appropriate jurisdiction relative to the staging of said events. Chapter 10.26.045 states that new heating,venting and air conditioning(HVAC) equipment cannot exceed a noise level of 50 dBA when measured at a residential property line.A noise level of 55 dBA is permitted if the equipment is installed with a timer that deactivates the equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Chapter 10.28.020 prohibits the emission or transmission of any"loud or raucous" noise from any sound-making or sound-amplifying device. No quantitative noise standard is provided. Chapter 20.30.080 prohibits deliveries, loading, unloading, opening/closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials,trash receptacles, or similar objects within a nonresidential zoning district between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. Chapter 20.48.090(0) requires that owners/operators of an eating and drinking establishment that sells,serves, or gives away alcohol shall post signs at clearly visible locations within the establishment and at both on-site and off-site parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum. Chapter 20.48.090(E) requires that the building structure in which bars, nightclubs, and lounges are located be adequately soundproofed so that interior noise is not audible beyond the lot lines with the doors and windows closed. www.wielandacoustics.com 6 October 26, 2015 220 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL 4 Existing Noise Environment The closest noise-sensitive land uses to the Project site are the residential properties on Linda Isle, the Bayshore Apartments to the west across Lower Newport Bay, and the restaurants east of the Project site.Traffic on East Coast Highway is the predominant source of noise that currently affects these sensitive land uses. However,the area is also affected by aircraft flights to and from John Wayne Airport, and occasionally by noise from activities at the existing marina,the parking lot, and the restaurants. In order to document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained late at night on a Friday from approximately 10:00 p.m.to 11:30 p.m. at two locations in the study area. (Refer to Figure 4-1.) Location #1 was selected to represent the closest residences on Linda Isle, and Location #2 was selected to represent the closest residences at the Bayshore Apartments.At each location the measurement was obtained for a period of about 30 minutes;to obtain the measurement,the microphone was positioned in a boat at a height of approximately 5' above the water. Extraneous noise sources (such as sirens)were excluded from the measurement by placing the sound level meter on "standby' until the noise event concluded.The results of the noise measurements are provided in Appendix I and summarized in Table 4-1. The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of an integrating sound level meter (Model LxT2) and an acoustical calibrator(Model CAL200) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories.The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4. Table 4-1. Summary of Noise Measurements Descriptionmeasured measured Location Measurement Av e N ise Maximum Noise # Location Adjacent to a dock at a residence on Linda Isle 11:39 PM to 1 across from the proposed restaurant 12:06 AM 49.8 63.4 2 Adjacent to a dock at the Bayshore Apartments 10:45 PM to 53.7 67.1 across from the proposed restaurant 11:28 PM As indicated in Table 3-1,the City's 15-minute average nighttime (10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.) noise level standard is 50 dBA at residential properties. Note (b) in Table 3-1 also indicates that the City's maximum noise level standard is 20 dBA higher than the average noise level standard; for the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.the maximum noise level standard is therefore 70 dBA. Referring to Table 4-1,the measured ambient noise levels adjacent to Linda Isle were slightly lower than the City's' nighttime average noise level standard of 50 dBA, and well below the City's nighttime maximum standard of 70 dBA.The measured average ambient noise level adjacent to the Bayshore Apartments was higher than the City's nighttime standard of 50 dBA.Therefore, at this location the City's Municipal Code allows the nighttime average noise level standard of 50 dBA to be increased to 53.7 dBA to account for the higher ambient noise level. However, to be conservative this permitted increase will not be included in the assessment of impact.The measured ambient www.wielandacoustics.com 7 October 26, 2015 227 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nriu a uicre uen consul tante Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL maximum noise level at the Bayshore Apartments was below the City's nighttime standard of 70 dBA. r Project Site #2 #1 i f t �,. � . Figure 4-1. Noise Measurement Locations 5 Project-Generated Noise Levels The proposed Project will introduce several new noise sources into the study area.These include outdoor dining activities, indoor dining activities, live or recorded music inside the restaurant, people congregating in the outdoor waiting area, and parking lot activities.The noise levels produced by each of these sources are discussed in greater detail below.The proposed Project will also include several rooftop mechanical equipment items such as air conditioning units, kitchen exhaust fans, etc. However, because the restaurant building has not yet been designed,the mechanical equipment items have not yet been identified and have not been included in this study. Several assumptions had to be made in order to analyze the estimated noise levels that will be generated by the Project's operation.These assumptions are identified as follows: www.wielandacoustics.com 8 October 26, 2015 222 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nesse a Vibration consuRome Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL O The restaurant will operate from 9:00 a.m.to 2:00 a.m. daily. O Live entertainment and recorded music will be prohibited outside of the restaurant, including in the outdoor dining area and the waiting area. o Live entertainment, if it is permitted,will only occur in the bar/lounge area in the northwest corner of the building. It is our understanding that the live entertainment will consist of a piano, or one or more musicians playing amplified guitars with accompanying vocals. Based on measurements obtained for other similar projects, an average noise level inside the bar/lounge area of 85 dBA has been assumed.When live entertainment occurs, all retractable walls will be closed and all exterior doors on the south and west sides of the restaurant will be closed. O Recorded music will be provided throughout the interior of the restaurant. O A maximum of 40 people will be seated in the outdoor dining area during the busiest 15-minute period of the day. o A maximum of 377 people will be seated inside the restaurant during the busiest 15-minute period of the day. O A maximum of 19 vehicles'will enter or exit the parking area during the busiest 15-minute period of the day. To estimate the noise levels that will be generated by people and activities in the proposed outdoor dining area, measurements were obtained on a Friday evening between 6:00 p.m.and 10:00 p.m. at the Cucina Enoteca restaurant in Newport Beach.This restaurant was identified by the Project Applicant as being similar to the proposed restaurant at Balboa Marina. (It is noted that there was recorded music playing in the outdoor dining area at Cucina Enoteca.This will not be the case at the proposed restaurant at Balboa Marina;therefore,the measured noise levels are assumed to represent a worst case scenario.)To obtain the measurement, a sound level meter was positioned on the sidewalk about 6'5"from the perimeter of the outdoor dining area. Each hour the number of patrons occupying the dining area was noted.To the extent possible, extraneous noise sources(such as vehicles,aircraft takeoffs, etc.) were excluded from the measurement by placing the sound level meter on "standby" until the noise event concluded. The results of the measurement (provided in Appendix II and summarized in Table 5-1) were then used to calibrate a 3-D computer noise model for Cucina Enoteca using SoundPLAN software. In this way,the effects of the perimeter barriers, ceiling, and reflective walls on the measured noise levels at Cucina Enoteca could be taken into account, leaving an estimate of the actual sound power generated only by the people, activities, and recorded music in the dining area.This calibrated sound power level was then superimposed on the outdoor dining area at the proposed restaurant and adjusted to take into account the fewer number of people (40)that are assumed to use the proposed outdoor dining area'. ' The traffic study[3]indicates that 75 vehicles will enter or exit the parking lot during the peak nighttime hour.Assuming that the vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot are evenly distributed throughoutthe hour,there will be an estimated 19 vehicles(i.e.,75/4=19)operating during a 15-minute period. z Based on the measurements summarized in Table 5-1,and using a linear progression,it may be estimated that 40 people in the outdoor dining area would have generated an average noise level of 64.5 dBA at the measurement position. www.wielandacoustics.com 9 October 26, 2015 289 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL Table 5-1. Summary of Outdoor Dining Activity Measurements at Cucina Enoteca 6:00 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. 65.1 71.6 44 7:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. 65.8 71.8 48 8:00 p.m.to 9:00 p.m. 67.3 73.9 58 9:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m. 65.8 73.5 49 To estimate the noise levels that will be generated by people, activities, and recorded music inside the proposed restaurant, measurements were obtained on a Friday evening between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. inside Cucina Enoteca.These measurements were obtained by slowly walking throughout the restaurant once an hour with a sound level meter.The results of the measurements indicated average noise levels that ranged from 70.4 to 79.1 dBA, and maximum noise levels that ranged from 79.1 to 83.6 dBA.The results of the measurement were then used to calibrate a 3-D computer noise model for the proposed restaurant using SouncIPLAN software.This was accomplished by adjusting the source level used in the model until the average noise level in the proposed restaurant was 79.1 dBA(i.e.,the highest average noise level measured inside Cucina Enoteca). To estimate the noise levels that will be generated by people and activities in the outdoor waiting area, measurements were obtained on a Friday evening between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. by slowly walking throughout the waiting area once an hour with a sound level meter.The results of the measurements indicated average noise levels that ranged from 58.5 to 61.7 dBA, and maximum noise levels that ranged from 66.8 to 71.6 dBA.To the extent possible, extraneous noise sources (such as vehicles, aircraft takeoffs, etc.)were excluded from the measurement by placing the sound level meter on "standby" until the noise event concluded.The results of the measurement were then used to calibrate a 3-D computer noise model for the proposed restaurant using SouncIPLAN software.This was accomplished by adjusting the source level used in the model until the average noise level in the proposed outdoor waiting area was 71.6 dBA (i.e.,the highest average noise level measured at Cucina Enoteca). Using the assumptions and data described above, along with the referenced plans, a 3-D computer noise model was developed utilizing SOunclPLAN software to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the nearby sensitive properties as a result of the Project's operation. SouncIPLAN takes a number of significant variables into account, including source sound power levels; the distances from sources to receivers; the heights of sources and receivers; barrier effects provided by walls or buildings;the noise attenuation that will be provided by the restaurant's windows', doors and facades; and noise reflected from hard surfaces such as buildings, parking lots, and water surfaces. Because some of the window walls on the west side of the proposed restaurant are retractable,two scenarios were analyzed: (1) with all of the window walls closed, and (2)with all of the window walls open. For each scenario,the analysis looked at both recorded music and live entertainment inside the restaurant.The results of the analysis are provided as noise contour maps in Appendix ll, and are summarized in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. 3 Based on information provided by the Project Applicant,the restaurant's windows will be 1"-thick insulated glass panes. www.wielandacoustics.com 10 October 26, 2015 �9L WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL Table 5-2. Summary of Estimated Project Noise Levels with Recorded Music Estimated Project Noise Levels,dBA With Window Walls Et Doors Closed With Window Wails Et Doors Open Receptor Location Average maximum Average maximum Nearest residence on Linda Isle 1 it Floor 44 51 50 57 2"d Floor 44 51 52 59 Nearest unit at Bayshore Apts. 1"Floor 40 47 46 53 2nd Floor 38 45 45 52 Nearest restaurant 47 54 47 54 Table 5-3. Summary of Estimated Project Noise Levels with Live Entertainment -7 Estimated Project Noise Levels,dBA Receptor Location With Window Walls&Do.ors Closed With Window Walls Ft Doors Openi Nearest residence on Linda Isle 1't Floor 74774/A7 N/A 2"d Floor N/A Nearest unit at Bayshore Apts. 1a1 Floor N/A 251 Floor N/A Nearest restaurant N/A Notes: 1. All window walls and doors will be kept closed when live entertainment occurs. Referring to Tables 5-2 and 5-3, it is estimated that the noise levels generated by the Project will comply with the City's daytime standards of 55 dBA at the nearby residential properties and 65 dBA at the nearby commercial properties under all situations. In general, it is also estimated that the Project will comply with the City's nighttime standards of 50 dBA at the nearby residential properties and 60 dBA at the nearby commercial properties, except at some of the residences on Linda Isle when recorded music occurs inside the proposed restaurant(i.e.,typical operating conditions), and the retractable walls on the west side of the building are open. As indicated in Section 3 of this report,the City of Newport has a number of qualitative policies and standards for regulating noise impacts from restaurants, bars, lounges,and nightclubs.These policies and standards require that the noise from such uses be inaudible or not excessive when experienced at a nearby sensitive receptor, property line, or public right-of-way. For the purposes of this study, a noise level is considered to be "excessive" if it exceeds the City's noise standards, as identified in Table 3-1 and as discussed above. However,there is no known methodology for assessing whether or not a noise will be audible, particularly when the character of the intruding noise (i.e., people talking or laughing, music playing) is different from that of the background ambient noise (traffic). With this caveat in mind,the following assessments are made with regard to the audibility of the Project: o Comparing the estimated Project noise levels with the ambient noise levels, it is considered reasonable to assume that the Project will be audible at times on Linda Isle when the retractable walls are open. www.wielandacoustics.com 11 October 26, 2015 291 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nriu a uicre uen consul tame Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL O It is considered reasonable to assume that the noise from the restaurant will be audible at the property lines and nearby public rights-of-way. However,this is not considered to be an important issue since the property lines abut the bay and marina on two sides, East Coast Highway on a third side, and another restaurant on the fourth side.That is,there are no noise-sensitive receptors near any of the property lines or public rights-of-way. Because of their longer distance from the proposed restaurant, as well as their closer proximity to East Coast Highway, it is more difficult to assess whether or not the Project will be audible at the Bayshore Apartments.Audibility will depend to a large extent on the noise level of the recorded music and live entertainment, the type of music that is played,the type of musical instruments that are used,whether or not there is amplification, and traffic conditions on East Coast Highway, 6 Preliminary Noise Control Recommendations The following preliminary noise control recommendations are provided for compliance with the City's noise standards, and to minimize audibility at the property lines, public rights-of-way, and nearby residences: 1. All window wall,window, and door assemblies shall be well fitted and well weather-stripped. The perimeters of all frames shall be sealed to the exterior wall construction with a weather- resistant sealant. 2. The retractable wall in the dining area on the southwest corner of the proposed restaurant building shall be replaced with fixed windows. An acceptable alternative is to install the retractable wall and lock it so that it cannot be opened at any time. 3. All windows and retractable walls shall be constructed of 1"-thick insulated glass assemblies (i.e.,two layers of%"-thick glass separated by a ''/:"-thick air space). 4. The glass entry doors on the south and west sides of the restaurant shall be storefront frame systems with minimum ''/<"-thick glass.An insulated stile shall be used around the doors. Doors shall close into a frame fitted with a neoprene bulb gasket at the head and both sides, and a neoprene drop that forms a seal with the threshold shall be fitted to the bottom of all doors. All doors shall be kept closed when not in use. 5. In order to optimize the performance of the glazing assemblies described in Items#1 through #4, above,the following frame construction techniques shall be used: a. All glass shall extend as deeply as possible into the door/window frames. b. Frames that rely on glass positioning by means of blocking shall utilize continuous blocks. Continuous blocks shall also be used on sides and tops of windows. c. Frames shall have a minimum surface density equal to that of the glass they contain. 6. The non-window walls of the building shall be constructed of: (a) minimum 8"-thick concrete masonry blocks; (b)cast-in-place concrete, or(c) 3-coat stucco on the exterior, studs, minimum R-13 fiberglass insulation batts, and minimum 5/8"-thick Type X drywall on the interior. www.wielandacoustics.com 12 October 26, 2015 292 WIELAND CAA PLANNING ACOUSTICS Balboa Marina Landside Improvements nriu a uicre uen consul tante Project File 13.032.01 - FINAL 7. The skylights shall be dual-glazed assemblies and shall not be openable. 8. The roof system at the restaurant shall include at least one layer of 14-gauge steel decking, or a material having at least the same density (pounds per square foot) as 14-gauge steel. 9. The glass wall on the west and south sides of the outdoor patio shall have a minimum height of 42" above the patio.The gaps between the glass panels and the supports, between the glass panels and the rails, and between the glass panels and the patio surface shall be kept to the minimum size necessary for drainage and expansion. 10. Deliveries, loading, unloading, opening/closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials,trash receptacles, or similar objects shall not be permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, or between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. 11. Signs shall be posted at clearly visible locations within the restaurant and the parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum. Appendix II provides the results of the analysis with the mitigation measures properly implemented. Referring to the Appendix,the estimated Project noise levels will be less than 50 dBA at the nearby residential properties. Final noise control recommendations should be prepared during the final engineering stage of the design, and should be based on final site plans, architectural plans, and mechanical equipment plans. 7 References 1. Balboa Marina West Traffic Impact Analysis. Kunzman Associates, Inc.April 17, 2014. 2. Preliminary Improvement Plan. Stantec. May 26, 2015. 3. Preliminary Demolition Plan. Stantec. May 26,2015. 4. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Stantec. May 12, 2015. 5. Balboa Marina West Parking Study. Burton Landscape Architecture Studio. October 22, 2015. 6. Floor Plans. BCV. May 14, 2015. 7. Elevations. BCV.June 19, 2015. 8. Perspective Drawings. BCV.June 19, 2015. 9. Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Newport Beach. 10. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. www.wielandacoustics.com 13 October 26, 2015 2J 3 APPENDIX 1 Noise Measurements "9.4 Table I-1. Noise Survey Project: Balboa Marina Landside Improvements Measurement Period 11:39 PM Position: t11; adjacent to a dock at the residence on to to to Linda Isle across from the Project site 12:06 AM n* Ln Ln Ln Date: July 10, 2015 Time: Noted 2 54.1 Noise Source: Ambient traffic and commercial activities Distance: Varies 8 52.0 SLM Height: 5' 25 50.9 LD LxT2 S/N: 4265 LD CAL200 CalibratorS/N: 2916 50 49.9 Operator: Cynthia Bordash 90 45.6 70 65 li 99 43.1 a 1 Leq 49.8 Z 50 -_____y _ _ __L_____-L______ I I I I 45 Lmax 63.4 I I I I 40 1 li Lmin 42.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Time Noise Level is Exceeded Leq is the average sound level during the measurement period. Ln is the sound level exceeded n%of the time during the measurement period. Lmax and Lmin are the maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. �9� Table 1-2. Noise Survey Project: Balboa Marina Landside Improvements Measurement Period 10:45 PM Position: t12; adjacent to a dock at the Bayshore to to to Apartments across from the Project site 11:28 PM n* Ln Ln Ln Date: July 10, 2015 Time: Noted 2 59.9 Noise Source: Ambient traffic and commercial activities Distance: Varies 8 56.7 SLM Height: 5' 25 54.4 LD LxT2 S/N: 4265 LD CAL200 CalibratorS/N: 2916 50 52.3 Operator: Cynthia Bordash 90 47.5 70 I I I I 65 99 43.8 a 55 ____ I_ y — ---y------- Leq 53.7 50 ------ ------ -------�-- --L------ 45 ----1--- �.----_L _�l_-�-- EL 67.1 i 43.1 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Time Noise Level is Exceeded Leq is the average sound level during the measurement period. Ln is the sound level exceeded n%of the time during the measurement period. Lmax and Lmin are the maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. 29� APPENDIX 11 Project Noise Level Analysis Note: The analysis in this appendix considers all of the noise sources described in Section 5,Project- Generated Noise Levels, including vehicle movements and activities in the parking lot. The parking lot configuration considered in the analysis is that depicted in the preliminary landscape plan prepared by Stantec on May 12, 2015 (Reference 4). Subsequent to the analysis,the parking lot was reconfigured as shown in the Balboa Marina West Parking Study prepared by Burton Landscape Architecture Studio on October 22,2015 (Reference 5).The changes are not considered sufficient to significantly alter the results of the analysis provided in this appendix. �q� cn m ° w Z� " OE N Q n « o w y V N l c m O z13 a � E LL. Uj . o � w so d�F v cn m ° wZ� " V N a N o 00 0 � 0 0 � OE N Q n « o w z a � ELL Lu � )« [ 2 Z Lo 4 ) u . 0 0 \ / / « / \\ 2 � \ � - /] & 2 ) � / « \ cn ahn z� : d c N r neo �o �n Ana am y � On m wV • / it z m : } k } ] \ 2� ! ) Lr; \ ƒ ) Q) Ics Lu � f } k = It < \ � z m : } k } \ 2 ] � ! ) \ ƒ ) QJcs \ � � \ \ � CO) AJ N z } ia ) ■�� � ^ ` cn N Z cn LLJ d � r nm �o .n Ana am a m OE IL j a v oo � o � o � o � g Q) ' nn �o io .n inccm u � O - CL m n o a m u, a' W 0 2 V Q m � � vu'i � a a m E m v _°o0 M V G J E t a-0 175 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �o� Attachment No. PC 6 Balboa Marina Valet Parking Management Plan 30 j V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� wog BALBOA MARINA VALET PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Assigned valet parkin¢ spots The valet areas will be assigned letters (A, B, and C) as shown on the included attached parking study exhibit. The total number of striped stalls in these three valet areas is 173 which can be used to accommodate 204 spots under this valet plan. Valet will stack cars on one row in areas A, B, and C as needed. Single row stacking makes it easy for valet to retrieve vehicles very efficiently without clogging the aisles. The remaining 89 stalls in Area D will be left open to the public for self-parking. Combining the 89 stalls in Area D with valet stacking, the site can accommodate 294 cars. Staging drop-off and pick-up will be conducted in Area A. Having the drop-off/pick-up in Area A, which is directly in front of the restaurant, prevents the general public from parking or driving in the middle of valet operations. When necessary, Area B will be blocked with cones and closed to customers to allow for valet stacking. Customers can access the drop-off/pick-up area through the self-parking aisle in Area D. Based on the parking analysis prepared by Gibson Transportation (attached), the weekday peak parking demand is 300 cars between 7-8PM on Friday, and weekend parking demand is 295 cars on Saturday between 7-8PM. Before this time,parking demand can be accommodated on-site with valet. To alleviate demand, employees working dinner shifts on Friday and Saturday will be required to park at Bayside Shopping Center(site plan attached) and carpool to the Marina. These restaurant employees would meet at Bayside Shopping Center and carpool in one employee's car to Balboa Marina. With between two and four employees in each carpool the deficit of 6 cars would be met. Bayside Shopping Center has a surplus parking count of 15 stalls, which is adequate to accommodate the parking demand beyond the 294 spaces on-site. In addition, the Union Bank at Bayside, which requires 27 stalls parked at 1/200 square feet closes at 6PM on Friday and IPM on Saturdays, before the need for off-site parking arises. Parking around the Union Bank can be reserved for employees and will not impact parking at Bayside Shopping Center. The valet operation will be open starting at 1130am until the restaurant closes. 2. Equipment and Signage There will be a podium posted in front of the restaurant's front entry (see spot X on the diagram). Having the podium in that spot makes for easy access to the front of the restaurant minimizing the customers' exposure to traffic and allowing them to wait by the podium on the way out to retrieve their vehicles from valet parking. A sign will be posted at the main entrance and will have an arrow pointing to the valet stations. Balboa Marina boat users will be notified that they should park in Area D to avoid valet operations. In addition there will be directional signage on- site and adequate visibility to the valet stand so that, should a Marina patron be blocked in by valet, a valet employee can move the valet car so the boat patron can exit. 3. Staffin A key component of the valet plan is to have an sufficient number of staff. This will ensure a smooth valet operation while easing the pressure of the congestion of the surface parking lot. 309 Proper staffing encourages customers to utilize the valet which in turn allows us to utilize and maximize the use of the assigned valet parking stalls. To start, it is envisioned that the operation will include a crew of four valet attendants which will provide an efficient service to customers. During times of increased demand, the valet operator will provide extra staffing if it is deemed necessary. Irvine Company has a reciprocal easement agreement with Sol Restaurant and both parties will cooperate to ensure each receives a reasonable allocation of parking spaces. Signage, as approved by Irvine Company, can be used to designate availability of valet parking for each valet operation. The steps detailed above will ensure that the valet operation operates efficiently and will be capable of meeting the parking demand of customers of the marina and the restaurant. Most importantly, providing an adequate number of valet attendants will invite customers to visit the marina and restaurant as often as they like without encountering a lack of parking spaces or delays associated with the valet. 310 i d s J � e 99 I � � I I I I I Ir c QL y Fd a Al J I I a �t e n0 O oa 8 / 8 w i Wa a ; I I V� QP �P S12 Attachment No. PC 7 Parking Demand Analysis for Balboa Marina 313 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �2� (R) ibson transportation consulting,inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Chase Gilmore, Irvine Company Retail Properties FROM: Sean Mohn DATE: December 2, 2015 RE: Parking Demand Analysis for Balboa Marina Newport Beach, California Ref: J1158 Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. was asked to conduct a shared parking analysis for a proposed expansion of the Balboa Marina. This memorandum summarizes the results of that analysis. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Irvine Company is proposing to expand the Balboa Marina at the southwest corner of East Coast Highway & Bayside Drive in Newport Beach, California (the Project). As currently proposed, the resulting Project would consist of the following: • 14,252 square feet (sf) of new restaurant space and 1,225 sf of new outdoor dining area, including 9,030 sf of restaurant public floor area and 225 sf of outdoor dining public floor area that will be used to help determine the parking requirement • 36 new boat slips o Including 24 private boat slips, and 12 "transient' boat slips for public use o The parking requirement calculation will exclude the 12 "transient' boat slips Existing uses on this site and contemplated in this study include the following: • 5,662 sf of existing restaurant space (Sol) • 105 existing boat slips As proposed, the Project would provide approximately 294 parking spaces in on-site parking lots, including 31 valet-stacked parking spaces and 13 tandem parking spaces. This study examines both the off-street parking requirements, as indicated by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) or City of Newport Beach use permits at existing facilities, and the anticipated parking demand based on the results of empirical data and Urban Land Institute (ULI) / International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) shared parking characteristics. The results of both analyses are presented below. 523 W. 6th Street, Suite 1234 Los Angeles, CA 90014 p.213.683.0088 f. 213.683.00331,5 Mr. Chase Gilmore December 2, 2015 Page 2 MUNICIPAL CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The NBMC has identified the off-street parking requirements of various land uses; in particular, NBMC Section 20.40.040 details the required off-street parking ratio for all developments proposed within the City of Newport Beach. The following parking rates are indicated in Table 3-10 of the NBMC: • Food Service o 1 space per 30-50 sf of public floor area • Retail (yacht broker) o 1 space per 200 sf of floor area • Boat Slips o 0.75 spaces per boat slip These parking rates were applied to the Project components to determine the NBMC-required amount of off-street parking stalls, except where noted. For the purposes of calculating the parking requirement for the new restaurant space, the upper limit of the range provided in the NBMC (i.e., 1 space per 50 sf of public floor area) was used due to the relatively large size and anticipated operational characteristics of the proposed facility, which will follow recent industry trends by placing a premium on the guest experience by prioritizing space and comfort over maximum capacity. As detailed in Table 1, the marina portion of the Project is required to provide a total of 97 spaces to accommodate the demand of the boat slips. The new restaurant space is required to provide 186 spaces. The parking requirement for the existing restaurant space is 73 spaces, as identified by building plans previously approved by the City of Newport Beach, for a total of 259 commercial spaces. The total off-street parking requirement for the expanded Project, as determined by the NBMC and existing use permit requirements, is 356 parking spaces. This parking requirement, when compared to the proposed parking supply of 294 spaces, would not be satisfied by the proposed parking supply. As detailed in Table 1, a shortfall of 62 spaces is indicated. It should be noted, however, that the NBMC parking requirements are based on averages and are not necessarily reflective of the actual parking demands experienced within individual commercial developments. As such, a parking demand analysis was performed to help determine the appropriate number of parking spaces needed to support the Project. PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Zoning codes provide peak parking ratios for individual land uses. While this appropriately recognizes that separate land uses generate different parking demands on an individual basis, it does not reflect the fact that the combined peak parking demand, when a mixture of land uses shares the same parking supply (e.g., restaurants and boat slips), can be substantially less than the sum of the individual demands. In addition, zoning codes do not take into consideration the 310 Mr. Chase Gilmore December 2, 2015 Page 3 unique characteristics and local conditions of individual commercial developments, which can greatly influence parking demand. As the proposed parking supply for the Project does not meet the off-street NBMC parking requirement, an empirical parking demand analysis was performed for the existing development to help determine if the parking needed to adequately serve the peak parking demand generated by the Project could be accommodated by proposed parking supply. The Project Applicant is seeking the approval of a parking variance based on the results of this analysis. Empirical Data Collection Balboa Marina is currently comprised of the following land uses: • 5,662 sf of restaurant space (Sol) • 1,600 sf of retail space (yacht broker) • 105 boat slips In order to ascertain the existing weekday and weekend parking demands of Balboa Marina, particularly as concerns the overlapping daytime restaurant (lunch) and boat slip activity, and the evening peak restaurant (dinner) activity, hourly parking utilization counts were taken on the following dates and times: • Friday, November 20, 2015 between 11AM-12AM • Saturday, November 21, 2015 between 11AM-12AM The parking utilization survey information is summarized in Table 2. Empirical Parking Demand Analysis As summarized in Table 2, the existing weekday peak parking utilization, i.e., the overall existing peak parking demand, of 114 spaces occurred between 7-8PM on Friday, November 20, 2015. The existing weekend peak parking utilization of 109 spaces occurred between 7-8PM on Saturday, November 21, 2015. Per the NBMC, the total off-street parking requirement for the new restaurant space is 186 spaces. Based on the corresponding observations by GTC staff, it is readily apparent that the peak boat slip and corresponding retail activity occurs early in the day and begins to dissipate as the evening approaches. As identified by building plans previously approved by the City of Newport Beach, the required parking for the existing restaurant is 73 spaces. Assuming that both the existing weekday parking demand of 114 spaces and the weekend peak parking demand of 109 spaces will remain constant for the remaining existing components of the Balboa Marina (despite the moderate increase in boat slips and removal of the existing yacht broker, which essentially cancel each other out based on the relatively equivalent parking demand characteristics for each land use as observed during the data collection effort) and that the peak parking demand of the new restaurant is equivalent to the NBMC code requirement of 186 spaces (as detailed in Table 1), the Project is estimated to generate a weekday peak 317 Mr. Chase Gilmore December 2, 2015 Page 4 parking demand of 300 spaces between 7-8PM and a weekend peak parking demand of 295 spaces between 7-8PM. Shared Parking Assessment The empirical parking demand analysis results for the existing uses were consistent with the hourly variations detailed Shared Parking, 2nd Edition (ULI and ICSC, 2005), which describes shared parking as follows: Shared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The opportunity to implement shared parking is the result of two conditions: • Variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehicles as the result of different activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, by season) • Relationships among land use activities that result in people's attraction to two or more land uses on a single auto trip to a given area or development Although the Project's restaurant and marina land uses are complementary in nature, for conservative purposes no internal capture reductions were assumed for the new restaurant, nor were there any reductions assumed due to the new restaurant's hourly variations throughout the day. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this analysis, the Project's weekday peak parking demand of 300 spaces and weekend peak parking demand of 295 spaces would slightly exceed the proposed parking supply of 294 spaces. The anticipated shortfall during the weekday and weekend peak hours is six spaces and one space, respectively. It is worth noting, however, that this analysis is conservative, as the complementary nature and hourly variations of the Project's restaurant and marina land uses could reduce the overall parking demand further, per the ULI/ICSC shared parking characteristics identified above. Parking Management Strategy In order to accommodate the peak parking needs of the Project, an off-site parking supply sufficient enough to accommodate the anticipated weekday and weekend shortfalls would need to be secured and made available to the Project on weekday and weekend evenings, and a valet parking operation would need to be implemented in order to insure the efficient management of the on-site parking supply during periods of peak activity. Bayside Shopping Center in Newport Beach is one potential off-site parking supply candidate; it is located relatively close to the Project and has a surplus parking count of 15 spaces, which is more than sufficient based on the anticipated shortfall. It is also worth noting that the Union Bank location within the Bayside Shopping Center would be closed at the time of the Project's 318 Mr. Chase Gilmore December 2, 2015 Page 5 peak activity (weekday and weekend evenings), further increasing the amount of surplus parking spaces during those periods. From an operational standpoint, it is our recommendation that the priority for the on-site spaces be reserved for Project patrons and that the Project employee vehicles be parked off-site whenever possible. 319 M a A T O) co �I N Lo N 6 N N N C Y E E as c i d d w m j a a U U C) i O W CL Y - OO '] > a w ,n LO o 'm a Q a o o ? L W a„ O � U a o_ a N :° w° m a Uu w v m °a' w � a O o O) W O (p C N a d C -a m a) O 'm J O@ E a U � Q a) w _ mw W Z U N U C 4] W U 2 n� N Q O ° C a c ~ O ° Z, ° c E U U N N O U Z amLn a`) -°o N OM m Q a1 0 O a U CL N O 0 U w d QQ 'O -0 .— M w N d O , W C N O_� 0 O Ca) C C N rG co w m -°° '°O 0E Q Co O M C N N O C m a5 y �° Q a O O (Dm 0 xi i aC m W 3 3 N - y N M 0 ° a a x a3 (D j CC 0 m Z Z W U U O y m O (a ai a3 C N U U U O)m N m N to O — N C — U O N to L C C C C C@ rn @ E E E `o E m m0Ea) o0r . -o ._ o 0 0' C 5c n n m � o 3 O 'V 07 O) O) C 0)Z N d C C C p C O E U? � � i = � .2:1��� f E a a nnnn a a 0 i � a M O N � E m o m n' n' z F F o a $ a n m � N 2 O V 2 z z O O X N �p IJ u w J J F F a w z < m � a � � N 0 z Y a n 2 6 � K M a f a m a N M 1` d ty a d a a u ri E f a a E f a a rc z O m O i a n n M zI w w N q 0 F ry O 3 m W 16O m W tt N N N N N F LL N i d s J � e 99 I � � I I I I I Ir c QL y Fd a Al J I I a �t e n0 O oa 8 / 8 w i Wa a ; I I m . QE m { LO § § - j -- < 4 $ ) ) , $ . c < @ J ) ( ) } - � \ ' > � \ ~ \ \ ! % ~ \ \ § 4§ \� � I � Q V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��� Attachment No. PC 8 Police Reporting District Map 325 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��� I I f ' m s b A � R. �r U c G i Fi i•• FigN n% _ ELC�INIII .�eINIS� -_" IIID' •� .. I ■ MINE,,r. nl , �y i % I �'�=•lug 1— V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��� Attachment No. PC 9 Police Department Memorandum 329 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� 330 NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE DIVISION 43 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager FROM: Wendy Joe, Police Civilian Investigator DATE: June 30, 2015 SUBJECT: Balboa Marina West Landside 201 E. Coast Hwy Use Permit No. UP2015-030 (PA2015-113) At your request, the Police Department has reviewed the project application for Balboa Marina West Landside located at 201 E. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach. Per the project description, the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant building and a marina restroom building. It is our understanding the restaurant does not yet have a tenant; however the intended hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily with full alcoholic beverage service. The size of the restaurant is 9,030 square feet (377 seats) with an additional 1,255 square feet of outdoor dining area (40 seats). The Police Department has no objections to the project overall, however we do have several concerns and recommendations. Once a tenant is chosen for the restaurant space and a complete business plan is compiled, we will be able to provide a more comprehensive response to the Project Review Request. Statistical Data Attached is a report compiled by NBPD Crime Analyst Caroline Staub which provides detailed statistical information related to calls for service in and around the applicant's current place of business at 201 E. Coast Hwy. The Police Department divides the City into areas referred to as Reporting Districts. This allows the Police Department to create statistical data, as well as better communicate officer locations while policing. The proposed applicant location is within Reporting District (RD) 41. In 2014, RD 41 had a total of 163 reported crimes, compared to a city-wide reporting district average of 148 reported crimes, or 10% over the city-wide average. In 2014, RD 41 had 70 total arrests. Of those arrests, 42% were for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Public 331 Balboa Marina West Landside UP2015-0111 Intoxication, a figure which the Police Department believes points to the over-saturation of alcohol establishments. Over Saturation / Undue Concentration of ABC Licenses The applicant premises is located within census tract 0630.05. This census tract has a population of 1,372 with 5 on-sale licenses. That is a per capita ratio of 1 license for every 274 residents, Per the Business and Professions code, we compare this per capita ratio to Orange County's per capita ratio of 1 license for every 737 residents. This ratio meets the criteria for undue concentration per the Business and Professions Code and will be evaluated by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they will be required to make a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). Noise The noise will be a priority concern for this project. The Linda Isle development is located across the channel from the restaurant and its outdoor dining patio. Residents from that community expressed concern in 2011 regarding the adjacent restaurant at 333 Bayside Drive. Similar to that restaurant, we recommend an evaluation by an acoustical engineer be required prior to project completion, and a review of the noise impacts be completed quarterly for an appropriate period of time thereafter. We also recommend windows and doors remain closed after 7:00 p.m. to minimize noise impacts. The public docks will also be of concern in regards to noise. We recommend these docks and the bathrooms be closed at 10:00 p.m. Recommendations Should this project be approved and a restaurant tenant contracted with an ABC license, the Police Department anticipates receiving an application for an Operator License due to the projected late hours. Our recommendations are as follows: Security The application for the Operator License will need to address security. Without having knowledge of the applicant or the intended business plan for the restaurant space, we will paint with a broad brush as it is our experience that restaurants with late hours will encounter security concerns. As such, the Operator License requires the applicant restaurant develop a security plan which will act as an amendment to the Use Permit and/or Operator License. This plan will be important as there is no established onsite security at the project location. The security plan shall be approved by the Police Department. A guide for creating this plan is attached. The Police Department also recommends the installation of security cameras with a one-month recording retention. It is our experience that cameras in conjunction with proper signage will not only deter, but help us to solve crime. 2 332 Balboa Marina West Landside UP2015-0111 Education It is encouraged that all owners, managers, and employees selling alcoholic beverages be required to undergo and successfully complete a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control approved certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. Education will limit potential problems such as over-service. Other Recommended Conditions In addition, the Police Department has determined the following conditions would be appropriate for the restaurant: 1. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 2. There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 3. No games or contests requiring or involving the consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 4. Strict adherence to maximum occupancy limits is required. 5. Any activities conducted outside of the building shall require a special events permit. 6. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the entire premises and on all abutting sidewalks within twenty (20) feet of the premises. 7. The operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours. 8. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records, which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. These records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Police Department on demand. 3 3.33 Balboa Marina West Landside UP2015-0111 9. All owners, managers, and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. 10. The operation of the outdoor dining area shall be limited. Additional Comments The Police Department is interested in a future meeting with the applicant and restaurant tenant to discuss the business plan for the restaurant. We will have additional comments and recommendations regarding the Use Permit and possible Operator License of the restaurant tenant after more information is provided. If you have any questions as to the content of this memorandum, please contact Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe at 949.644.3705 or wjoe@nbpd.org. 1 t Wendyoe otic ivilian Investigator, Special Investigations Brad Miller wi, Sergeant, Special Investigations r� Jay Short Lieutenant, Detective Division Jon Lewis Deputy Chief 33.4 � = o a pt i� m O N m eo v1 n �\\W .i ffffll ei .i V Q �o E M s M O 01 0 M N O. d m L O m v O Z H •Qi y N d O 7 O O g m w > O� zV A m O O A y 0 - G ow r -,�2 A ° ° m t Q Q O a > m a E m A u Q N ] If M ll d y .1 d 11 U 0 A V dC1. N v A N 'O ¢ O t O O O O 40 01 J « 9 ; N A C[ ; p N v 3 aPi 'N' c n IN a E Z O O o m 00 N A i u o M M ry 0 3 E Q LLI U o Q ~ u L N a Cc Cc v 2 d m z v n `m E j a Q a°. m ^ OV o o v � O O d r y w $ a o s > „ z n arQi m O � t o W v o, o O C a ¢ N N M N M M o O C y O O Y U N G V) m N ♦d C Y r C v N mw O W N rv0 vni 4 4 O u1 ` C Kz ul r '6 m Cd A ` E ,m, aai m 5 A 13« '� d « 0 a o L9 m q '3 o. _ o i O1 > a v — o ^ ry '" m o 0 0000 v 0 c c o e r U a '°^ E j N N N K Y L O d t o n rl O � 0 C V m N 4 d d N M d A m U. n v o m aD w o, E N N m c v to A M N 3 w SE VI N N K Q w Q K Q Z V Z 4 ti V U 2 4 (DATE) City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Dr./P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach,Ca.92658-8915 meg+ yp a g� �g7� 7�Try� �r 7� (ESI IJB Ll�9L�ME V l L Vfi E) Operational Plate The owner/applicant of the (ESTABISHMENT NAME), (APPLICANT NAME) understand the importance of being proactive and partnering with the City of Newport Beach in order to run a successful business that benefits both the owner and the community. (APPLICANT NAME)has worked with Newport Beach Police Department officials, such as; (WITH PERMISION- LIST OFFICERS APPLICANT HAS NET WITH) to develop a detailed security and operational plan for his businesses. Per the City's request, the applicant has created a comprehensive Security/Operational plan for the (ESTABISHMENT NAME). MINIMUM REQUIRENIENTS: a) License: (------) b) Gross square footage of business premises: -( Sa.Ft.) C) Proposed Occupancy: L) d) Track Record: The operator has an (--)track record with M liquor license violations. e) Date business Acquired: (DATE) f) Hours of Operation: (- -- to --:--) g) Does the proposed establishment offer live entertainment: (YES OR NO) SECURITY PERSONNEL All security personnel will be directly employed by the (ESTABISHMENT NAME) and subject to all (ESTABISHMENT NAME)procedures and policies. Including, but not limited to; having a current euard card for the duration of employment, fulfilling �.-training course and being L.E.A.D certified. All records will be kept on file and accessible to the manager on duty. (ESTABISI-IMENT NAME) security personnel responsibilities will include but not be limited to: • Verifying that guests are of appropriate age and posses current up to date California acceptable ID's 4 33o • Greeting Customers • Enforcing dress code: o No tank tops o No bandanas o No club affiliation(gang attire) o No sports jerseys o No UFC affiliated attire (tapout) o California casual attire • Maintaining a clear and safe environment both inside and outside the business • Observing for over intoxicated guest o Not allowing intoxicated persons entrance to the business • Being proactive by watching for aggressive or confrontational guests • Intervening before a verbal altercation becomes a problem • Helping to keep order and clear the passage for both guests and personnel alike • Keeping an accurate count of guests and employed personnel in the building • Helping to ensure that no minors are being served alcohol Two security members will be located inside the building with pre-designated posts to help prevent congestion. They will also be responsible for helping to maintain a safe environment by observing for over intoxicated guests and potentially violent guests or situations. On any given night, (ESTABISHMENT NAME) will have I security person for every 50 persons in the building. In addition to having security staff on duty, a(# of cameras) camera video surveillance system will constantly cover most parts of the interior and some of the exterior building(including queue line and designated smoking areas). In a case where the surveillance can be helpful, the owner will be more than willing to tum over any video footage he may have to the Newport Beach Police Department. SECURITY PERSONNEL UNIFORMS All security personnel will be required to wear; black sports coat, black pants, and black shirts. An identifying tag with "SECURITY" etched into it to help identify them as security personnel. Security personnel will be required to carry current guar cards and IDs on them at all times. In addition, (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) will be required to have; flashlights, digital counters, black lights for the doors, current ID books, 30x Magnifying loop and Kenwood 2 way radios with Pryme noise reduction acoustic ear pieces. 5 337 CONTROL QUEUE LINE (IF NECESSARY) Once the building has reached capacity and there is need for a queue line, all guests will be asked to enter on the (NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST) side of building, which will be the only entrance. Alongside the building will be a stanchion and rope where the customers will line up. (IF NEEDED ADD THIS NEXT SENTENCE DESCRIBING BARRIER) A (-- ft.) barrier that consists of a(DIMENSIONS) railing will separate the guest on the patio from customers in the queue line. In addition, a Security personnel will be designated to walk and patrol the line as an effective deterrent against disruptive and/or illegal activity. The security personnel will: • Assess for intoxication • Review dress codes • Ensure line queue is not encroaching on other properties or businesses • Monitor smoking, noise & littler • Ensure the tine does not encroach on neighbor's property. • Prohibit interaction with customers on the patio. CONTROL AND CLEARANCE OF OCCUPANCY/PARKING LOT/ SIDEWALK Security personnel will be in constant communication with each other throughout the night to monitor/maintain the permitted occupancy. If a person exits from the (NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST) side of the building, the security personnel will radio the staff stationed at the (NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST) side entrance to permit another customer into the building. The security staff member on the (NORTTUSOUTH/EAST/WEST) side will do the same and also radio the number of occupants entering, to help ensure an accurate count at all doors. (ADD PARAGRAPH BELOW IF SMOKING IS PERMITTED ON PATIO) Anyone who wishes to smoke will be asked to smoke on the (NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST) side of building at which time the door will be used for exiting and smoking only. When a guest steps outside to smoke, they receive a stamp and will still be accounted for in the total capacity count. (ESTABISHMENT NAME) security personnel will be required to perform periodic patrols of the immediate parking lot to ensure no loitering tittering, graffiti or illegal consumption of alcohol or narcotics. If any persons are observed partaking in any illegal activities, they will be asked to cease and desist. In addition, the manager on duty will be notified and alert the Newport Beach Police Department. Upon closing, 3 of the (ESTABISHMENT NAME) security personnel will patrol the parking lot in the immediate area to ensure safe departure of(ESTABISHMENT NAME) 6 332 guest and pedestrians. Once the parking lot is clear, a member of the (ESTABISfIMENT NAME) security staff will be required to sweep the immediate area of trash, cigarette- butts and debris that may have accumulated due to business operations. INCIDENTS INVOLVING FORCE The (ESTABISHMENT NAME) has a strict no hands on policy. We have instructed all personnel to avoid aggressive or forceful confrontation with a potentially aggressive guest. We encourage a verbal and diplomatic resolution to all problems. We only condone reasonable force to subdue an aggressive guest if they are a direct threat to themselves, another guest or a staff member of the (ESTABISMAENT NAME). If force is required in any way, security personnel is required to follow the strict procedures that have been set forth and signed by each security staff member. These procedures include notifying the Newport Beach Police Department as soon as it is safe or the situation allows Attached is a copy of our incident report we use if force is necessary or if a guest is injured. Also, attached is our policies and procedures for handling an aggressive guest. INTOXICATED PERSONS Once an over intoxicated guest has been identified, the security member will notify the manager. Then, all serving staff will be notified that the person in question will no longer be served alcohol. If the person in question is with a group of people, the manager and a member of the security staff will approach one of his/her sober friends to assist in getting the person in question an alternative form of transportation home. As according to California law, it is illegal to serve or permit a person that is obviously intoxicated in your establishment. If the person in question is alone, a manager accompanied by a security staff member will approach the guest and inform them that we will no longer(by law) be allowed to serve them alcohol. At which point the manager will offer an alternative means of transportation(i.e. Taxi,Uber or a friend to pick them up) to the customer. If the person refuses and insists on driving, the security staff member will attempt to engage in a conversation with the customer until the Newport Beach Police Department has been contacted. The (ESTABISHMENT NAME) manager on duty will call the Newport Beach Police Department and notify them of the situation providing them with any pertinent information. 7 33J° VERIFYING AGE/CHECKING IDENTIFICATION When greeting customers, Security personnel will be responsible for making sure that the guest entering is of age and has a current California accepted bona-feed ID. The ID should be current and offer a physical description. The ID must have a photo and show date of birth to be 21yrs of age or older. If the security member has any questions about the ID, they will be instructed to consult our most current California acceptable ID book. The (ESTABISHMENT NAME) enforces the F.L.A.G. procedure: Feel—Feel the ID for any inconsistencies. Cracking, Peeling, Texture Look—Look at the ID to make sure all information is correct, current and the person on the ID is the person presenting it. Ask—Ask questions. For example. Are you 21 or older? What is your birthday? Where do you live? Give Back—Once they have determined that the person possessing the ID is 21 years of age or older, they will give the ID back to the person and allow them the enter The security member will notify the manager if it is determined that the ID presented is not real or the wrong person. The security will confiscate the ID and provide the person with a receipt and instructions that it will be turned over to the Newport Beach Police Department within 24 hours and can be claimed there. We also provide our security staff that greets guests with a black light to help identify any black light sensitive printings and a 30x magnifying loop for Micro printing. Conclusion The(ESTABISHMENT NAME) takes great pride in having a knowledgeable, friendly and professional security staff. When it comes to security situations, it is vital to be firm and impartial. Security personnel is required to stick to the facts when dealing with a problem. (Opinions and personal feeling may not and cannot be a part of decision making when it deals with the safety and control of the guests.) In addition, a constant communication between staff, security and managers is required. All security and managers on duty will wear a radio to help aid in communication and professionalism. It is the (ESTABISHMENT NAME) policy that a managers is to be involved in any security related issue whenever possible. 8 S40 The (ESTABISHMENT NAME) understands the importance of police involvement in altercations or other specific security issues. It is important to be willing to work with Newport Beach Police Department to help ensure the safety of our guest and pedestrians walking by our establishment. We encourage notes comments and support of Newport Beach Police Department. The (ESTABISHMENT NAME) staff will work tirelessly with the City of Newport Beach to promote a safe and enjoyable atmosphere for the community. 9 342 Policy and Procedures (Aggressive Guests) The (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) has a strict no hand on policy. All personnel must always try to avoid aggressive or forceful confrontation with any guest at the establishment. In order avoid potential physical conflicts, the (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) personnel shall be proactive and in constant communication with all staff of any potential aggressive behavior. BEING PROACTIVE The (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) Security and Staff shall take a proactive approach to handling all potential conflicts. In a circumstance where a personnel deems a guest can become a potential threat to others in the establishment, the following shall occur: • Radio the manager and all personnel of the individual to monitor and cease serving the individual alcoholic beverages. • A security member shall approach the individual by introducing themselves and explain the reason for their presence. • Ignore, distract or divert all verbal abuse when communicating. • Act in slow movements and stand to one side of them. • Listen patiently to any potential problems the individual may have without interrupting. • Acknowledge any failings or mistakes made, where they exists, especially if it cause anger. • Demonstrate an understanding of the frustration by paraphrasing what the person has said. • If the aggressive individual has been asked to leave, the manager will inform the neighboring bars of the incident to avoid a possible conflict elsewhere. AGGRESSIVE AND FORCEFUL BEHAVIOR In the unfortunate circumstance when a guest becomes aggressive and forceful, below are the proper procedures for the (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) personnel to abide by; • The security member observing the aggressive guest must immediately radio all staff of the situation. • The manager on duty shall immediately call Newport Beach Police Department to inform them of the situation. m Two security members shall approach the guest(s) and attempt to deescalate the situation and separate guest(s) involved by removing them from the contentious area to speak with him/her outside. 10 342 o After removing the individual from the situation, two security members shall, without making assumptions, listen and observe what took place from the aggressive individual. o The security members shall decipher the potential of any additional aggressive guests in the establishment and their removal. • The manager will inform all staff of everyone involved in the situation to attentively monitor another situation from occurring with additional guest. • Staff will cease serving alcohol beverages during time of incident as needed on a case by case basis. • After the situation has been resolved or Newport Beach Police has arrived and given permission, the personnel must complete an incidents report. • If the aggressive individual has been asked to leave, the manager will inform the neighboring bars of the incident to avoid another conflict elsewhere. FACTORS. While there is no way to specify the exact amount or type of reasonable force to be applied in any situation, Security Staff are only expected to use force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the security member at the time of the event to protect themselves and the other guests in the establishment. The following factors should be taken into consideration, as time and circumstances permit. These factors include, but are not limited to: • Immediacy and severity of the threat to others (Potential for injury to security member, aggressive individual and/or others). • The conduct of the individual being confronted, as reasonably perceived by the security member at the time. • The effects of drugs or alcohol. (Subject's mental state or capacity) • Proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised devices. • The degree to which the individual has been effectively restrained and his/her ability to resist despite being. • The apparent need for immediate control of the subject or a prompt resolution of the situation. • Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no longer reasonably appears to pose an imminent threat to the officer or others. • Prior contacts with the subject or awareness of any propensity for violence. • Any other exigent circumstances. 11 3.43 (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) (ADDRESS) (CITY,STATE, ZIP) Aggressive Guest Incident Foran Any use of force by a guest or personnel of the (ESTABLISHMENT NAME) shall be documented promptly, completely and accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature of the incident. EMPLOYEE MANAGER Name: Name: Address: Address: INCIDENT Date: Time: Provide a summary of what exactly happened. Explain why the factors perceived and why there was a need for the use of force. Additional witnesses involved: Name: Number: Address: Name: Number: Address: Signature: Date: 12 344 Attachment No. PC 10 Draft Resolution of Denial 345 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��� RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING MINOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SD2015-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UP2015-030 FOR A RESTAURANT WITH FULL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OFF- STREET PARKING LOCATED AT 201 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2015-113) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 201 East Coast Highway, and legally described as TR 5361 LOT A POR OF LOT AND POR SW1/4 SEC 26 T 6 R 10 requesting approval of a minor site development review and a conditional use permit. 2. The applicant proposes a new 14,252-square-foot restaurant building with outdoor dining and a new 664-square-foot marina restroom building and a conditional use permit for a restaurant (food service, late hours) with full alcoholic beverage service and live entertainment, and a reduction in required off-street parking. 3. The subject property is located within the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). 5. A public hearing was held on December 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. X47 Planning Commission Resolution No. #kms# Page 2 of 3 In accordance with Section 20.52.020.F (Findings and Decision) and Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Zoning Code, eating and drinking establishments classified as "Food Service, Late Hours" located within the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District require the approval of a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission may approve a use permit only after making each of the five required findings set forth in Section 20.52.020.F. In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed use permit for the food service, late hours use is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC. 2. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are not compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. In this case, the proposed project would introduce a new commercial land use, a restaurant, into area that is located approximately 260 feet from the Linda Isle residential community without sufficient design and operational features to minimize potential noise impacts. 3. The site is not physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics. The property does not provide sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the proposed use. The Planning Commission does not consider the the proposed valet parking management plan and off-site parking are sufficient to offset the shortfall of required on-site parking spaces. 4. The operation of the proposed restaurant at the proposed site would be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of the residents of Linda Isle community. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Site Development Review REVIEW SD2015-003 AND Conditional Use Permit UP2015-030 (PA2015-113), subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. AYES: 10-02-2015 342 Planning Commission Resolution No. ###### Page 3 of 3 NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 10-02-2015 S49 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� ��o Attachment No. PC 11 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with MND No. ND2013-002 351 V� Q� `-� �,P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� X52 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044) was prepared for Balboa Marina West, a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor, improvement and expansion of the existing Balboa Marina, and the construction of a 19,400 square feet marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K- 3. The mitigated negative declaration (MND) was made available for public review and comment during a 30-day review period beginning on August 18, 2014, and ending on September 17, 2014, and was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on October 4, 2014 and, on appeal, upheld and affirmed by the City Council on November 25, 2014. The environmental analysis covered eighteen environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the proposed project. The environmental analysis concluded that ten environmental factors where the proposed project had "no impact' or a "less than significant impact': Agriculture Air Quality Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mineral Resources Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems The environmental analysis also concluded that there were eight environmental factors where the proposed project would have a "less than significant impact with mitigation": Aesthetics Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Aesthetics The MND analyzed a conceptual design for a 19,400-square-foot marine commercial building with tuck-under parking with a height of 40 feet (the maximum height permitted for a structure with a sloped roof in the Non-Residential Shoreline Height Limit Area). The analysis concluded that the marine commercial building could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations and had the potential to adversely affect the existing visual quality or character of the area. Mitigation Measures MM AE-1 and MM AE-2 were required to reduce potential impacts to aesthetics to below a level of significance: MM AE-1 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the PC 10-1 J 5,J Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE-2 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non- reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. Project Consistency with MND Analysis: The proposed project is within the development envelope of the conceptual marine commercial building analyzed in the MND. Furthermore, as the proposed restaurant building has approximately twenty-seven percent (26%) less floor area and half the height as the conceptual marine commercial building, potential impacts to aesthetics are further reduced. As required by Mitigation Measure MM AE-1, the proposed project's architectural design was reviewed in the staff report and was determined to be in compliance with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan polices related to architectural character and aesthetics. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM AE-2, building elevations and a materials board was submitted as part of the application. A review of these plans and materials in the staff report concluded that architectural design of the restaurant building will not include non-reflective materials and that the colors are complimentary to the surrounding area. Biological Resources The analysis concluded that temporary construction activities in the water, such as dredging and pile driving, would result in short-term temporary impacts to the avian, marine mammal, and fish species and habitats. Project Consistency with MND Analysis: No waterside improvements are proposed as part of this application. It was estimated that approximately 235 piles would be required to support the conceptual marine commercial building. It is anticipated that the number of building support piles will decrease in response to the reduced building footprint of the proposed restaurant building; however, this has not been engineered. Unlike the waterside piles, these landside piles would be auger cast pressure grouted, which produces less noise and vibration than the installation process for the waterside piles. Therefore, the biological resource mitigation measures are not applicable to the proposed project. Cultural Resources Although it is unlikely that archaeological resources could be encountered during grading of landside native soils of the project site, Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 would PC 10-2 354 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 ensure that impacts to archaeological resources, if unearthed during construction activities, are reduced to a level below significance. MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall be provided evidence that the construction contractor is trained to identify suspected archaeological resources; or, a professional archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor ground-disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed native soils. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan(s): "If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during ground- disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall temporarily halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find until a qualified archaeologist can be called to the site to assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Newport Beach." The grading contractor shall be responsible for complying with the note. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) criteria for cultural significance, construction shall be permitted to proceed. However, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the City of Newport Beach shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City, which may include the implementation of a Phase II and/or III archaeological investigation per City guidelines. All significant cultural resources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The archaeologist shall incorporate analysis and interpretation of any significant find(s) into a final Phase IV report that identifies the level of significance pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2(G). The City and Project Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that resources are recovered. Project Consistency with MND Analysis: Unlike the conceptual marine commercial building analyzed in the MND, the proposed restaurant building will not be elevated on fill with parking beneath, which results in a reduction of earthwork totals. Nevertheless, the site will still be graded and there remains the potential for encountering archaeological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 will be incorporated as a condition of approval. Hazards and Hazardous Materials PC 10-3 355 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 The analysis identified potential health risks associated with the demolition of the existing yacht brokerage building, which may contain friable asbestos materials and materials coated with lead-based paint. There is also the potential for Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in an empty vault on the southwest corner of the project site that was previously used to house an electrical transformer. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant: MM HM-1 During Project grading and construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that possible locations where the USTs may have been located, either near the existing building or along the western side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land-side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks removals. MM HM-2 The following Condition of Approval shall be placed on the Project's demolition permits. COA: All demolition permits shall comply with: a) SCAQMD Rule 1403 with respect to asbestos containing materials. b) Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which addresses the removal of components painted with lead- based paint (LBP). c) Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) regarding the removal and disposal of PCBs. Project Consistency with MND Analysis: Mitigation Measures MM HM-1 and MM HM-2 will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Hydrology/Water Quality The analysis identified the potential to temporarily impact the water quality of Newport Bay through sedimentation and turbidity during waterside construction and dredging activity. Mitigation measures were required to reduce construction-related effects to below a level of significance. Prosect Consistency with MND Analysis: The hydrology/water quality mitigation measures are primarily applicable to the waterside development. Requirements for a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and the use of construction and operational best management practices (BMPs) are applicable to the proposed project, but are covered by standard conditions of approval. PC 10-4 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 Land Use and Planning The analysis did not anticipate conflicts with applicable policies or regulations of the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, or Zoning Code. However, Mitigation Measure LU-1 requires City review of applications for a site development review and a conditional use permit, which require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies: MM LU-1 The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to ensure compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. Project Consistency with MND Analysis: As required by Mitigation Measure MM LU-1, the proposed project was reviewed in the staff report and was determined to be in compliance with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan polices and Zoning Code regulations. Noise The analysis concluded that compliance with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's Municipal Code or General Plan Noise Element, or the California Building Code. However, because the design and location of a potential outdoor patio was not known at the time, Mitigation Measure MM N-1 was required to avoid conflicts with City noise ordinance standards: MM N-1 As a condition of CUP issuance for a restaurant use in the marine commercial building and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any restaurant, bar, lounge, or nightclub to be located in the marine commercial building, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to verify that the building operations, including operations in the outdoor patio, comply with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.090(E) of the City's Municipal Code. The analysis also concluded that compliance with the timing provisions of Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity—Noise Regulations) during construction activities would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM N-2 requires compliance with Section 10.28.040 and other noise control measures to reduce temporary construction noise impacts to a level less than significant: MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach Community Development PC 10-5 3.7 Analysis of the Balboa Marina West Landside Project with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 Department shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that: a) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State- required noise attenuation devices. b) During the construction phase, the Project Applicant shall ensure that construction hours, allowable work days, and the telephone number of the job superintendent are clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the appropriate party. c) When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). d) During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. e) Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). Prosect Consistency with MND Analysis: As required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician. The study concluded that with the design and operational noise control recommendations, the restaurant with the outdoor patio seating and dining area, can operate in compliance with the City's noise standards. Mitigation Measure MM N-2 will be incorporated as a condition of approval. PC 10-6 S52 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3a:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) -----Original Message----- From: Margo O'Connor[mailto:moconn949@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:02 AM To:Alford, Patrick Subject: Balboa Marina West Landside Dar Patrick Alford, Planning Manager: I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing and am sending This Email as my"written correspondence delivered to the City.... prior to the meeting). Please acknowledge that this is the correct email to which we send our concerns. I live directly across from this project and am very concerned about the negative effects on the ability of Linda Isle residents to continue to enjoy our residences. I am concerned regarding: 1. Our properties are about 100'from the Balboa Marina and the noise from outdoor dining and from live entertainment would make it very difficult to continue to quietly enjoy our residences. 2. The height of the building is higher than allowed. 3.The size of the building would change the character of the area. 4. The light and glare from vehicle headlights would shine into our homes. 5.The noise from vehicles leaving at late hours would interfere with ability to sleep undisturbed in our own homes. 6. The Dover Bridge is already a very congested area. Years of attempts have not been able to solve the problem of the Dover Bridge being the connection between Newport Beach and communities South of Newport Beach. In spite of this, projects that would make the situation worse have continued to be approved. And Now, the Dover Bridge area is facing even greater congestion, due to the already approved BackBay Landing Project and the City approved Waterside element of this project. The Landside portion of this project (with it's nightclub attractions )would only increase even further the traffic on and around the Dover Bridge!! Thank you, Margo O'Connor 90 Linda Isle moconn949@gmail.com 1 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3b:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) From: Maureen Buffington [mailto:buffinaton santo(cbvahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:46 AM To: Alford, Patrick Cc: Margo O'Connor; Seychelle Cannes; Darlene Covington; Marilyn Williams-Severson; Annie Quinn Subject: Public Hearing this Thursday, 12/19 Dear Mr Alford I am writing you concerning the Planning Commission review of the Landside portion of the (Irvine Co.) Balboa Marina West Project. PCH and Bayside Drive is already a very busy corner and with the recent Coastal Commission Approval of the Back Bay Landing Project, it will be even busier. Traffic will be a danger to public safety. The additions of a new 14,252 Sq' restaurant building with outdoor dining and a 664 Sq' building and a CUP for a restaurant with live entertainment and more, makes us very concerned about the noise, light pollution, loss of views, etc.. This"nuisance"will be disruptive for residents of Linda Isle, Castaways, Bayside Village and even as far as Dover Shores communities. It is not in keeping with the nature of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration, Maureen Buffington and John Santo 110 Yorktown, Newport Beach. (PAlford ,newportbeachca.gov i Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3c: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) -----Original Message----- From: Pat Simonian [mailto:hvenaction@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:55 PM To:Alford, Patrick Subject: Linda Isle homeowner Hello, I'm a Linda Isle resident and object to the proposed restaurant site across from my home. The proposed site will negatively impact the value of my home because of noise levels, bright lights, excessive traffic, and late night hours. This restaurant would be too close to the Linda Isle residential community and lower the value of all homes. I ask the city planning commission and city council to deny this project. Thank you. Patricia Simonian 99 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA Sent from my iPad. Pat t 'ar r, �J f w: .n,`1�,, ■' Si � 1 it •�. Mt ��, v_ �'i i ����,�r � � , � I _ Iv� `r;R FII q'�% ® r ♦ r ♦ r '. ® ' l We 1�M op 00. 10 c ♦ r00 • • A 00 - .. od _ $C t 1 4 1 , ax e f A�t - �� '.4 f , ��. 'w 4� 1 ± ���� L� � � a���i •v ��.yyy �i•. � � ♦ r r Y - Al J �' 1 1 � ; �� VI ia1� Yfy, nJ� .�, W •^ � 1 a � } F � _ 4t' �Py,, IU{i��11��11��111 a 11, A _' :.i� . �♦tib` y _ ry:Y �_r N y :"lrP `" � ` of I%-atm _ 1 r - ,{ .+.� -s.s � i��'��w.l�'a`. :T• ,.. a3' � �� p► r.�Am��, " A., .' f 11 ff11 ar` .�- .. xsm. - 1 WE r IRVINE COMPANY --"B A L 1) A U F C A T T 0 N V O N EC KARTS BERG Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION— DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3e: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) From: Teri Hausman [mailto:tthausman(a)aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:51 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: The proposed development December 16, 2015 Dear Mr. Palford, " I live right across a narrow channel from the proposed development. I am very concerned about having a restaurant with outdoor entertainment and dining in full view of my home. Noise travels very well across a narrow body of water - - and it will seem that the restaurant is in my back yard. Approval of this restaurant with entertainment and outdoor dining will seriously detract from my property value and enjoyment of my home. Please do not approve this project that will negatively affect many of us on Linda Isle." I am also speaking for my elderly grandmother who lives at 61 Linda Isle. Thank You, Teri Hausman My name is Teri Hausman 91 Linda Isle Her name is Josephine Herbert Gleis 61 Linda Isle Teri Hausman Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3f:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) From: Linda Crean fmailto:lalacreanngmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:44 PM To: Alford, Patrick Cc: afcreanCalgmail.com Subject: Irvine Company Proposed Restaurant Development on PCH Hello, First, we are extremely upset about the date selection for a meeting—who picks Boat Parade week or the Christmas season at all???????We live at 92 Linda Isle directly across from the site& have grave concerns regarding the outdoor patio and live music as well as the overall square footage of the building itself. We understand that the Linda Isle Homeowner's Association is sending a representative to oppose/question the development and as we are unable to attend we support any of our neighbors who are able to attend and fully support their concerns. Again, respectively, the City Council/Planning Department/Irvine Company probably doe not fully grasp the echo and sound travel of music or any noise for that matter as it relates to the waterfront properties. Lido Isle successfully fought the restaurants on the Coast Highway on this same issue—the bay at that location is easily ten times wider than in our location and the noise for the Lido residents was considered intolerable. Our bedroom, as well as our neighbors, is situated on the bayside of the lot—there is no way we will ever get a good nights sleep with live music noise traveling across the channel. We probably would not object to a smaller single story building without outdoor dining and absolutely no music as long as the site was previously zoned for it. If this site was intended to remain as open space and this a variance or plan change request we fully oppose it. Please submit this on our behalf at the meeting. Thank you, Andy& Linda Crean 92 Linda isle 1 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3g:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) From: Mary Raymond [mailto:mraymondl(o)roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 12:50 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: The Balboa Marina West Landside Project To: Pat Alford From: Mr. and Mrs. Carl Raymond 40 Linda Isle Newport Beach,CA 92660 This is to relate to the Planning Commission of Newport Beach our concern with the Balboa Marina West Landside Project. This project will definitely impact the residence of Linda Isle. Our representative should have a voice in what is being proposed. This project will be beneficial to the City of Newport Beach and will be built. We feel that the residence of Linda Isle should have a voice in the height, lights, and especially the noise during the hours of operation. We appreciate you relaying this to the Planning Commission at the meeting to be held this Thursday, December 19, 2015. Mary Raymond 1 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3h:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:20 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: Additional materials Commissioner Weigand requested this information, please distribute to the Commission and public: 3-Thrit -3 SOL Reuben E Lee Balboa Marina West 7:00 am-11:00 pm Hours of Operation 9:00 am—2:00 am Not specifed (Sun-Thu) 9:00 am—2:00 am 7:00 am—12:00 am Fri-Sat 10:00 am—9:00 pm Patio Hours 9:00 am—1:00 am 11:00 am—10:00m (Sun-Thu) 9:00 am—12:00 am P 10:00 am-10:00 pm Fri-Sat ABC License Type 47 Type 47 Type unknown Type 47 Live Entertainment Yes Yes Yes Yes(to 1:00 am) Patrick J. Alford Planning Program Manager City of Newport Beach I Community Development Department)Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 (949)644.3235 (949)644.3229 palford@newportbeachca.gov 1 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3i: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) -----Original Message----- From: Sherree Vaughan [mailto:sarvaughan@aol.com] Sent:Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:16 PM To:Alford, Patrick Subject: Balboa Marina West Project Pat Alford, Although I am unable to attend your scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Thursday 12/17/15, 1 would, as a resident of Linda Isle, like to forward my concerns regarding the restaurant portion of the Balboa Marina West plan,to you. First the size of the projected restaurant building as stated at 14,000+sq. ft., being placed a few hundred feet across the water from multi million dollar family homes, is outrageous. The size of the building, how it will be used, and the projected hours of operation, will undoubtedly affect: A.)The quality of life and enjoyment of the residential amenities of many of our Newport Beach residents who live on Linda Isle. B.) In addition,this project will most likely, if approved as requested by the Irvine Co., affect the property values of many of the landowners who own property on Linda Isle and face the projected project. I cannot imagine that your Committee, which is given the responsibility of helping the City of Newport Beach to continue to grow and develop in a positive and safe manner for all the residents who live in this City, can in good conscience approve this Irvine Co. project as currently planned. Even the fact that the scheduled meeting to discuss this project was not set to give consideration and respect to the residents of Newport Beach who will be most affected by this project (held during the annual boat parade, and with little prior notice of the meeting) leads me, as a homeowner of Newport Beach and more specifically Linda Isle,to be very concerned about the actual amount of open discussion this Irvine Co. Project will receive from your Committee during the scheduled meeting. Thank You, Sherree Vaughan 82 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) Dec. 17, 2015, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 3. BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) Technical corrections to the proposed resolution (Attachment No. PC 1) Suggested changes to the passages in italics are indicated in �•.pn, t underline format. 1. SECTION 1.1 (handwritten page 21): "An application was filed by The Irvine Company, 2. Facts in Support of Finding A.1 (page 23): "ResreaUen Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use category is intended to ... The CM land use category is implemented by the Commercial Recreation Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District." 3. Facts in Support of Finding C.3 (page 24): Extraneous comma after"area." 4. Heading (page 26): "Facts in Support of F4nding Findings" [purports to support three different numbered findings] 5. Paragraph 2 (page 27): "The proposed project with will expand and enhance public access ..." 6. Facts in Support of Findings 3 (page 27): "The project, with the recommended conditions, will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, ..." 7. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 (page 29): "Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030 and Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20 91 050 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted." 8. Condition 14 (page 30): "The hours of operation of the outdoor deck shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. through 12:00 a�midnight, daily." [Whether"12:00 a.m." means midnight or noon is not universally agreed to.] 9. Condition 21 (page 30): "Prior to the issuance of building permits, final noise control recommendations shag be prepared by a qualified acoustical professional during the final engineering stage of the design, a^a ^ kibe based on final site plans, architectural plans, and mechanical equipment plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval." 10. Condition 22 (page 31): "LeGatien The location, number and types of dining tables and chairs shall be in substantial conformance with those depicted on the approved floor plan." [should include "number'?] 11. Condition 23 (page 31): "Restaaran Outside the restaurant patrons shall be restricted to the outdoor patio deck dining and seating area depicted on the approved Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received December 17, 2015, PC agenda item 3 comments -R9ftUasl%arina WesPt"slide (PA2015-113) site and floor plans; access to other areas of the outdoor patio deck shall be prohibited." [As written, the condition would appear to restrict patrons from using the indoor dining area. Surely that is not what was intended, but even with the suggested correction it is still awkwardly written: are patrons allowed in an waiting area outside the front door?] 12. Condition 33 (page 31): "All proposed signs shall be in conformance with any approved Comprehensive Sign Program for the project site and provisions of Chapter 20.6 20_42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code." [note: the NBMC has additional sign construction standards in its "Sign Code" (Chapter 15.16)] 13. Condition 44 (page 33): Delete? - this is repeated, with an additional sentence requiring graffiti removal within 48 hours of notice, in Condition 77. 14. Condition 47 (page 33): "A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, er and that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of onsite media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits." [? — note: a slightly different version of the same is provided as Condition 75. It would seem one or the other should be deleted.] 15. Condition 50 (page 34): "During Project grading and construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that possible locations where the Underground Storage Tanks (USTs1 may have been located, either near the existing building or along the western side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land-side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks tank removals..." 16. Condition 55 (page 35): "Fire hydrants shall be located within 400 feet of all portions of the buildings. C.F.C. Sec. 507.5.1. The Number of fire hydrants will be determined based upon distances and fire flow demand." 17. Condition 62 (page 36): "Each fecfwireel commercial kitchen exhaust hood and duct system required by Section 609 shall to have a Type I hood shall be protected with an approved automatic fire-extinguishing system installed in accordance with this code. C.F.C. Sec. 904.2.1." [?] 18. Condition 88.e (page 39): "Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays)." 19. Condition 89 (page 39): "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised Valet Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. The revised Valet Parking Management Plan shall demonstrate:" [?] Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received December 17, 2015, PC agenda item 3 comments -R9ftUasl%arina WeSP isfide (PA2015-113) 20. Condition 90 (page 40): "The applicant shall provide an offer to dedicate (OTD) a minimum ten (10) foot-wide public access easement connecting the public dock to East Coast Highway." [note: the printed copy of the staff report I have says "West'.] Additional comments on the proposed resolution (Attachment No. PC 1) 1. Facts in Support of Finding A.2 (page 23): Since the most water-related existing use (the yacht brokerage) is being eliminated, it is hard to see how conversion of the parking lot to a restaurant "will allow the continuation of existing coastal-dependent and coastal- related uses." In addition, I am unable to find any condition of approval ensuring the prediction that "the yacht brokerage will be relocated to a waterfront location in close proximity to the marina." Finally, the project seems to be blocking the general public's currently existing views of the harbor and restricting access to waterfront areas they are currently able to visit, neither of which seems consistent with the stated purpose of the CM land use designation. 2. Facts in Support of Finding C (page 24): 1 am unable to find anything supporting the required compatibility of the proposed use with the existing residential uses in the vicinity. 3. Facts in Support of Findings D & E (page 25): a. Fact D.1 seems more closely related to Finding E than to finding D. b. Fact E.2 seems more closely related to Finding D than to finding E. c. Fact E.3 only ensures that the conditions of approval minimize conflicts "to the greatest extent possible." It the Commission finds the remaining conflicts serious enough, that does not, to me, seem sufficient make the required finding. 4. Pages 26-27: On these pages the resolution deviates from the normal format by presenting a group of required findings and criteria, and then purporting to support them with a series of facts, but without identifying which facts support what. It is not at all clear to me that facts in support of all the required findings and criteria have been provided. 5. Conditions 1 & 22 (pages 29 and 31): It is not clear what "substantial conformance" means. The staff report mentions (on page 4) 377 seats in the interior area and 40 seats on the outdoor deck (numbers also quoted by the applicant's sound consultant on handwritten page 289). Is the applicant required to stay under those limits? If so, should that be mentioned in a condition? 6. Condition 12 (page 30): Was "elements approved by this Site Development Review/Use Permit' intended to read "elements required by this Site Development Review/Use Permit'? If the approval is not approving the entire plan, exactly what parts are being approved? 7. Condition 32 (page 31): Wasn't the signage recommended by the noise consultant supposed to ask visitors to "Keep noise to a minimum." Do signs saying to "Be courteous and respectful' make it clear that noise is the issue? Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received December 17, 2015, PC agenda item 3 comments -Baftasl%arina West't lside (PA2015-113) 8. Condition 66 (page 36): Shouldn't maximum occupancy signs be posted near the entrances rather than at the exits? 9. Condition 75 and 77 (page 37): As previously noted, these Police Department Conditions largely duplicate but differ from the earlier Conditions 47 and 44, respectively. Also, the Police Report for this proposal omitted some of the conditions that are normally applied to alcohol serving establishments — such as restrictions on "happy hour" promotions. Is there any reason for that? 10. Condition 84 (page 38): Why are trucks and heavy equipment allowed to idle for up to 30 minutes? Wouldn't a limit like "5 minutes' be more reasonable and more climate conscious? Also some of the recommended practices such as washing streets may conflict with requirements related water quality imposed by Condition 86. General comments on the application 1. This project seems unusual in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved before a project had been defined, and continues to seem unusual in that the Commission is now being asked to approve a Conditional Use Permit before a tenant to use that permit has been identified. 2. Because the MND was prepared before an actual project was proposed, the public has been deprived seeing simulations of how the actual buildings proposed will affect the existing views of the harbor from Coast Highway between Bayside Drive and the Upper Newport Bay Bridge. 3. In the Noise Study(Attachment No. PC 5), the applicant's noise consultant repeatedly refers to measurements they made regarding activities at "Cucina Enoteca" (for example, page 9 [handwritten page 289]). To the best of my knowledge "Cucina Enoteca" is a restaurant in Newport Center on the site of the former EI Torito. Do they mean "Sol Cocina°? If so, that lack of attention to detail casts some doubt on the credibility of their other work. 4. Much is said about possible noise impacts to Linda Isle residents approximately 250 feet from the proposed outdoor dining area. Very little is said about the impacts to residents of the Bayshores Apartments, who are about 650 feet away (Noise measurement location #2 in Figure 4-1 of the Noise Study on page 8 [handwritten page 288]). It might be noted that when an application for outside dining at 333 Bayside was considered by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2007, staff recommended denial based on the history of complaints by Lido Isle residents about noise from outside diners at Billy's by the Beach and the Charthouse, some 740 feet from them — levels which might technically meet the City noise standards but still be "irritating" to residents according to the City's reviewing noise consultant at that time. I have not seen much being done here to protect the Bayshores Apartments residents. 5. The lack of an offer to provide public access along the whole length of the waterfront, even it is private property, seems to me a problem from a Coastal Act standpoint, as well Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received December 17, 2015, PC agenda item 3 comments -R9ftUasl%arina WeSPt Glide (PA2015-113) as with the intent of the CM zoning. The lack of access to the restrooms to people who are not paying slip renters may also be a problem. 6. It may be a minor point, but the applicant's Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. PC 6) does not explain where the valets will park themselves. Also, Item 2 refers readers to a "spot X on the diagram' representing the location of the valet stand. lam unable to find it. 7. Table 2 of the applicant's Parking Demand Analysis (Attachment No. PC 7) lists observed vehicle counts by hour on two days in five numbered zones of the existing parking lot. The zones do not match the accompanying diagram of the proposed new parking configuration in any obvious way. 8. The Parking Demand Analysis also rather arbitrarily assumes the low end of the NBMC parking requirement for food services can be used for the new restaurant because it "will follow recent industry trends by placing a premium on the guest experience by prioritizing space and comfort over maximum capacity." NBMC Section 20.40.060 ("Parking Requirements for Food Service Uses") actually sets forth a number of matters the Commission is supposed to consider, and to use the conditions of approval to enforce the assumptions it has used. It is not clear that simply accepting the applicant's assertions is a thoughtful way to accomplish that. At a minimum, it should be possible to determine if the number of seats proposed is actually less than the industry standard for the amount of net public area. Subject: ITEM 3K: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 From: Lori Johnston [mai Ito:LJohnstonCoNcItplaw.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 4:22 PM To: Alford, Patrick Cc: dmiller(a)irvinecompany.com; Kiff, Dave; Harp, Aaron; Brandt, Kim; Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; edselichCabnewoortbeachca.aov; Peotter, Scott; keithcurrvInvahoo.com Subject: Balboa Marina West Minor Site Development Review Mr. Alford, Please see the attached correspondence from Mr. Beltran with regard to the Balboa Marina West Site Development Review. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you. Lori A. Johnston Legal Assistant to Michele A. Staples, Gregory P. Powers, Eddy R. Beltran and Sarah R. Kleinberg Jackson I DeMarco ITidusl Peckenpaugh 2030 Main Street, 12th Floor I Irvine, California 92614 949.851.7657 direct 1949.752.8585 main 1949.752.0597 fax www.idtplaw.com ATTORNEYS This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. JDTP is a recognized Partner in ABA-EPA's Law Office Climate Challenge t Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Jackson I DeMarcol Tidus Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION December 17,2015 Direct Dial: 949.851.7463 Entail: ebeltran@jdtplaw.com Reply to: Irvine Office File No: 6008-46360 VIA EMAIL (PAlford(a)newportbeachea.eov) AND U.S. MAIL Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager City of Newport Beach Community Development Dept., Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Re: Balboa Marina West Minor Site Development Review No. SD2015-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-030 (Agenda Item No. 3) Dear Mr. Alford: We represent the Linda Isle Homeowners Association("Linda Isle") in connection with the Balboa Marina West Development and,more specifically, the proposed project described in the City's staff report as follows: "A minor site development review for a new 14,252-square-foot restaurant building with outdoor dining and a new 664-square-foot marina restroom building. And a conditional use permit for a restaurant(food service, late hours) with full alcoholic beverage service, and live entertainment, and a reduction in required off- street parking" (proposed"Project"). The Project is proposed by The Irvine Company. Linda Isle is the nearest residential community, located directly across the harbor from the proposed Project site. We request that this letter be included as part of the administrative record for this matter along with the prior correspondence, oral comments and materials submitted by Linda Isle. As discussed in greater depth below, Linda Isle requests that the Planning Commission deny the proposed Project based upon the significant impacts to residents of Linda Isle, including impacts related to noise, glare, traffic and parking, that are newly-defined and were not specifically analyzed as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in 2014 ("MND"). The MND reviewed a conceptual project.' The MND did not have any information on an actual proposed project and as a result the only analysis of the restaurant and marina restroom ' According to Attachment PC. 11 to the staff report for the December 17,2015 Planning Commission meeting,the MND was prepared for"Balboa Marina West, a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor,improvement and Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 www.jdtplaw.com Irvine, California 92614 Westlake Village, California 91361 t 949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 t 805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Patrick J. Alford,Planning Program Manager December 17, 2015 Page 2 components was a broad"envelope" analysis. At the public hearing held on October 4, 2014, the Commission members and the public were informed that the actual project proposal would be reviewed at a later time and would be subject to CEQA.2 The City now has a proposed Project and is disclosing design features available for review. This means it is now time for the City to conduct an environmental analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. This project level analysis was not a part of the MND and as a result has not been publicly vetted under CEQA. The City must conduct a new, comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Specific Project discussed below in order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. see. 15000, et seq.) or otherwise prepare an environmental impact report due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. For the reasons set forth in this letter, our previous letters on the record and testimony on the Project, we hereby request that the Planning Commission a) deny the Project or b) continue the hearing in order to conduct the proper CEQA impact analysis for the proposed Specific Project and/or the addition of mitigation measures to reduce significant Specific Project impacts to the Linda Isle community. 1. The City Has Violated CEQA's Policy Attainst Deferred Analysis and Mitieation. The City's delay in disclosing, analyzing and mitigating noise and other environmental impacts to Linda Isle from when the MND was adopted until the current, newly-defined proposed Specific Project is a violation of CEQA's prohibition on deferred analysis and mitigation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(b).) "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. [Citations.]" (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. (See, e.g., Gentry v. Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396 [conditioning a permit on"recommendations of a report that had yet to be performed" constituted improper deferral of mitigation]; Defend the Bay v. City oflrvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275 [deferral is impermissible when the agency "simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any expansion of the existing Balboa Marina,and the construction of a 19,400 square feet marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office,public restrooms,and a restaurant." Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager December 17,2015 Page 3 recommendations that may be made in the report"]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 ["mitigation measure [that] does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, ... without setting any standards"found improper deferral]; Sandstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 306 [future study of hydrology and sewer disposal problems held impermissible]; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994)29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1605, fn. 4 [city is prohibited from relying on "postapproval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review process"].) Instead of describing the proposed project and performing one comprehensive and complete analysis of the proposed project's environmental impacts under CEQA, the City evaluated an "envelope" of potential impacts for an undefined project—no actual project features —when it approved the MND in 2014. There have been several changes and modifications to the hypothetical project analyzed in 2014 as part of the MND and the proposed Project that is currently before the Planning Commission. For the first time, the City is disclosing such basic project features as the proposed building height and configuration of the proposed restaurant building and outdoor patio. The City should, accordingly, continue the hearing in order to perform a full and complete analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Project in accordance with CEQA, and develop mitigation measures intended to mitigate those potential impacts. Failure to do so deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed Project and renders any approval an impermissible post hoc rationalization. 2. The Project Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Noise Impacts to Linda Isle. CEQA declares that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of California with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic,natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, andfreedomfrom excessive noise. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (b).) The hearing on the Project should be continued to allow time for the City to evaluate, disclose and mitigate the potential noise impacts to Linda Isle residences both during the construction period and following Project completion based on actual,measurable data. The City cannot defer its analysis of these impacts and the development of mitigation until after permit plans are submitted. (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1605, fn. 4.) The October 26,2015, Wieland Acoustics Report ("Weiland Report")prepared in connection with the Project acknowledges that the Project will introduce several new noise sources into the area, including indoor/outdoor dining activities, live and recorded music, congregation of patrons on the outdoor patio area and parking lot activities. Despite this influx of newly disclosed noise sources caused by the Project, the Weiland Report measured noise impacts at only two locations—neither of which were on Linda Isle. (Attachment No. PC 5, pp. 7-8.) The Wieland Report cannot accurately analyze noise impacts to Linda Isle associated with construction and operation of the Project without current baseline noise measurements from this nearest sensitive receptor location. A supplemental noise analysis should be prepared that Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager December 17, 2015 Page 4 discloses and analyzes these impacts based on current, measurable data from Linda Isle, the nearest sensitive receptor most likely to be affected by the Project's construction and operational noise impacts. Further,the Weiland Report states that noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as rooftop air conditioning units, kitchen exhaust fans and other similar equipment, was not included as part of the analysis because the restaurant building has not yet been designed. (Attachment No. PC 5,p. 1.) The omission of these impacts renders the Weiland Report incomplete and its analysis of the Project's noise impacts insufficient. A supplemental report must be prepared that addresses these impacts and analyzes them in accordance with CEQA. The City cannot defer this analysis until the "final engineering stage"of the Project design. (Staff Report, pp. 8-9.) Deferring analysis is impermissible piecemealing. Under CEQA, a"`Project' means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ...." (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) A"`project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c).) The lead agency must consider"[a]ll phases of project planning, implementation, and operation." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(1).) CEQA prohibits a lead agency from "segmenting"or"piecemealing" a project into small parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts. The California Supreme Court has explained that the requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from"chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.) Rather,the examination of a"project"requires an analysis of"all relevant parts of a project, including reasonably foreseeable future expansion or other activities that are part of the project." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of University of Cal(1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 394.) In addition, the Staff Report and Weiland Report do not include any analysis of the impacts associated with activities in Parking Area B, including noise associated with vehicles entering and leaving the parking area late at night within the impact area of the homes on Linda Isle. Staff Report downplays noise impacts from this area, such as car doors closing, car alarms, loud stereos, and patrons talking, by characterizing them as mere "single event noise disturbances." (Staff Report, p. 7.) This is insufficient and does not relieve the City of the obligation to disclose, analyze and mitigate the impacts of noise from these sources to Linda Isle residents, whether on an individual or collective basis. Moreover, the Staff Report acknowledges that the Weiland Report did not"specifically address noise from valet operations"in Parking Area B. (Staff Report,p. 7.) Instead, a general recommendation to add signs to this area asking patrons to "keep noise at a minimum"is included as a condition of approval. There is,however, no assurance that such signs will have any practical effect. The City should perform a real analysis of the noise impacts from this area and impose meaningful mitigation measures to reduce these impacts on Linda Isle residents and others in the surrounding community. Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Patrick J. Alford,Planning Program Manager December 17, 2015 Page 5 In addition, there is no analysis of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed restaurant along the marina frontage. The Project does include a designated public pedestrian walkway that will direct pedestrians from the parking areas along East Coast Highway to the restaurant and public docks; however, there is no impediment or restriction that would prevent these same pedestrians and restaurant customers from choosing to instead walk along the docks within much closer proximity to Linda Isle residences. Allowing public access along the south side of the commercial building by late night revelers and customers of the proposed restaurant and visitors to the public dock would generate additional noise impacts to Linda Isle residents above and beyond the impacts attributable to the restaurant and outdoor patio. The City must, accordingly, consider and analyze these additional potential noise impacts and incorporate measures to restrict public pedestrian access along.the private Balboa Marina portion of the Project site. Additionally, the significance of the operational noise impacts of the Project on Linda Isle residents was not disclosed or evaluated in the MND. The proposed restaurant and nightclub is proposed to operate until 2:00 a.m. daily, with a last call until 1:30 a.m. daily. The outdoor patio area will remain open until 12:00 a.m. daily. Further, amplified sound at the restaurant will be permitted until 1:00 a.m. daily. Although the Project's Conditions of Approval contain some noise mitigation recommendations,these are not sufficient to reduce impacts to Linda Isle residents. For example, limiting restaurant dining to the west side of the outdoor patio which does not directly face Linda Isle will not prevent noise from restaurant patrons seated on the patio from reaching Linda Isle residents,particularly during late night hours. Further, this does not account for noise caused by patrons and pedestrians who can freely access the south portion of the patio facing Linda Isle and the marina frontage walkway. hi addition, while Linda Isle appreciates the proposal to require that fixed windows be installed and that all windows and doors to be shut when recorded or live music is being played or after 10:00 p.m.,this will not mitigate sound from restaurant workers and patrons traveling from inside of the restaurant to the outside patio deck, during which time the doors would be open and amplified sound and other noise would escape and significantly impact Linda Isle residents. Further, simply prohibiting deliveries, loading and unloading, and trash removal from the loading dock area which directly faces Linda Isle during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., is insufficient. Noise impacts from the loading dock area are significant and will directly interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of Linda Isle residents' homes. Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager December 17, 2015 Page 6 The City must analyze and incorporate feasible mitigation measures now to analyze, disclose and mitigate the Project's direct and indirect noise impacts, including, but not limited to: 1) prohibiting amplification; 2) requiring installation of sound attenuating windows at the restaurant's south side; 3) prohibiting any patio or other outdoor use of the restaurant's south side closest to Linda Isle; and 4) restricting public pedestrian access along the.private Balboa Marina portion of the Balboa Marina West Development site. 5) Restricting live entertainment to a piano, or one or more musicians playing amplified guitars with accompanying vocals.3 In the absence of such measures, the right of Linda Isle residents to quiet enjoyment of their properties will be significantly impaired. In sum,the Project should be denied or, alternatively, continued in order to permit sufficient time for the City to disclose, analyze and mitigate the significant noise impacts associated with the newly-defined Project, as required under CEQA. 3. The Project Fails to Adequately Analyze or MitiLyatc Potential Light and Glare Impacts to Linda Isle. The Staff Report and related Project documents fail to adequately address the potential light and glare impacts to Linda Isle residents from the commercial building windows,parking lot and internal circulation within the reconfigured parking area. The MND and information included in the Stantec grading report prepared in connection with the MND indicate that the parking area will be raised as much as 9 feet above existing grade. This increase would create the potential for vehicle headlights to shine across the water directly into Linda Isle residences. Linda Isle appreciates that a 3-foot high landscaped area between the parking lot and the souther waterfront will be included as part of the Project to reduce glare and light impacts to Linda Isle residents; however, additional measures, such, as Plexiglas shields, should also be required in order to mitigate potential light and glare from vehicles entering and leaving the Project site. Similarly,the requirement under Condition 20 that the commercial building "incorporate"non-reflective materials and colors is commendable; however, additional 3 The staff report(p.4)states: "live entertainment would be in the form of a disc jockey(DJ)or other form of live entertainment, such as musicians and other forms of amplification sound. The technical noise study prepared by the applicant assumes that live entertainment would consist of a piano,or one or more musicians playing amplified guitars with accompanying vocals." Because the technical study did not analyze the noise impacts from a live DJ,a live DJ must not be permitted. Planning Commission-December 17,2015 Item No.3K Additional Materials Received Balboa Marina West Landside(PA2015-113) Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager December 17,2015 Page 7 t E 3 mitigation and performance standards are needed to ensure that residents of Linda Isle are not significantly impacted by light and glare from the Project site. 4. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth in this letter, our previous letters on the record and testimony on the Project, we hereby request that the Planning Commission a)deny the Project or b)continue the hearing to allow for the required impact analysis and the addition of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the Linda Isle community. Thank you for your consideration of these comments to the proposed Project. We would be happy to provide additional information to assist the City in complying with CEQA and reducing the Project's impacts on Linda Isle residents and members of the HOA. Sin rely, " Eddy R. Beltran cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Members Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director David Kiff, City Manager Aaiun C. Harp,City Attorney Dan Miller,The Irvine Company Subject: ITEM 3L: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 From: Zac Eglit [mailto:zacOstrategicla.coml Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:01 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 12-17-2015 Development at Balboa Marina next to Linda Isle Dear Mr. Alford I'm writing you this email to state my objection in the project that is being proposed directly across the channel from my home on Linda Isle. This project will not only be an eyesore but will significantly hurt the value of not only my home but the adjacent properties. I am also concerned about the proposed use of the property with a restaurant/Nightclub with hours up to 2 AM. I would hope that you will take this and other objections into consideration when you make your decision on how to proceed with this project. Zachary E President BDR, Inc. T. 818143517775 F. 818143517779 C. 818165218808 This email and any documents transmitted with this message may contain privileged, proprietary and confidential information belonging to BDR Inc. 8 Strategic Acquisitions, Inc.The email and any attached documents are intended only for the use of the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,distribution of, use of, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or any documents transmitted with this message is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately, by reply email or telephone.Also, kindly delete the e-mail from your system.Thank you. 1 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 3m:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED BALBOA MARINA WEST LANDSIDE (PA2015-113) From: Peter Baer [mailto:oeter(alstrateaicla.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:29 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: LINDA isle Dear Mr. Alford I'm writing you this email to state my objection in the project that is being proposed directly across the channel from my home on Linda Isle. This project will not only be an eyesore but will significantly hurt the value of not only my home but the adjacent properties. I am also concerned about the proposed use of the property with a restaurant/Nightclub with hours up to 2 AM. I would hope that you will take this and other objections into consideration when you make your decision on how to proceed with this project. Thank you, Peter Baer Sent from my Whone i Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addot r)nQ1 N92ferm2is Presented Qt ting 13) Balboa Marina West • • - 4 4 11 T EW PQ Planning Commission Public m • ~ n u �= s December Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 ting 13) Introduction Project Location 2o1 East Coast Highway Southwest of Bayside Drive and East Coast Highway Conditional Use Permit No . UP2015-030 Site Development Review No . SD2015-003 New 14,252-square-foot restaurant Outdoor dining Live Entertainment Full alcoholic beverage service Late hours New marina restrooms 12/24/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 ting 13) Vicinity Map MOE UT _ �-�11• 3 'sail* ~cJi � �. p \\ . p / � ® v 0' 00 " A 0� i).. Yy'.� app 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 MINI! Oblique Aerial i k r . • P _ - 6C its . 10 �-�e-'alit'. � ... • i `• 4 Pictom%,Y Site Photos j 12/17/15 Community I ; Development .. Planning Commission - December 13) 5 ite Photos �z� VIEWTOTHEWEST VI EW TO TH E EAST Y lj a� 4� 4 _ � 2e•.J � 1y. Community • • Department Planning Commission - December 13) Site Photos C3 � YACHT BROKER RESTROOMS � : r 12/17/15 R Community • •ment Depar Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addmtmc)nQl N92ferm2is Presented Qt ting Mitigated Neg Dec 13) ND20:L3 - 002 Marina Expansion 24 new private slips Public Dock 4 relocated public slips 8 new public slips Marine Commercial Building 19,400 square feet Tuck-under parking Potential restaurant Yacht brokerage office Public restrooms .r Reconfigured Parking and New Landscaping 12/17/15 Community Development Department - Planning Division 8 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 ting 13) Development Areasa a.C'dt/FOR•N�P LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT v' F S t AREA / a Co a �4 /PUBLIC TRANSIENT / S r Highway DOCK AREA c f } e I Sel P Ru1au�.nt 14 a -tl G ! 3 e. »s3 PRIVATE DOCK \ L EXPANSION AREA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\ \ \ W / Linda Isle » \ \ moi' \ \ 12/17/15 Community Development Department - Planning Division 9 • • ITO=MINI! • Landside Concept Plan Mon /f,�` ��� 11111:■■■■■ , , + � ' \��``���� �`""'__ •Restaurant IIIIIIIIIIH 13 Marine Commercial ' •�,II* . iY1i1 011 Ilm II II1 �.m52� mll � 4II IIm II IImY C® 3 �\3211 Community32 12117/15 Development D- •. • Division Project Comparison CONCEPT2014 . . PROPOSED PLAN mow_ . '"� �4� -.;r1NNlllll� _ a ®0 IWINE C�N, ®E Development12/17/15 Community .. Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmanal UafermQls Presented 2t ting 13) Project Comparison ( 2 ) 2014 CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSED PLAN �.. �•s�-yam711 II I� IIT 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 ting 13) 2014 Concept Plan Proposed Project Gross Floor Area: 19,400 sq. ft. 14,252 sq. ft. Net Public Area: Not specified 9,030 sq. ft. Height: 40 ft. (Max) 20 ft. Outdoor Dining: Yes Yes 11255 sq. ft. Parking: Tuck-under & surface Surface 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 13 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmonal UafermQls Presented 2t ting 13) Design/Operational Outdoor Patio P 113 b - � s L 9 Outdoor FLOOR PLAN PdtlO _ BALBOA MARINA _ Deck NEWPORT BEACH, CA ... 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division sq Design /Operational Issues Sliding Glass Walls Jill 11 :jpj Pjr•;dn11 I: . ... ... ... .. ... m A. BCV � � � Design /Operational Issues Loading Area/Service Entrance P�DIS-113 Service Entrance i. ,jii ii •� J — �p a �� a t!' I�;i,17i,1TN I:•: :e: •: * � * *' L-Uadinq Area '••:�: :� �: .�: tl '.:�: :�: :�: :�: :�: :�: y:III V ••. . . N f BALBOA MARINA NEWPORT BEACH, Development12/17/15 Community ■. Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmonal UafermQl!; Presented 2t ting 13) Design /Operational Trash Disposal Trash Enclosure o Service Entrance/ Loading Area buren. *IRVINE COMPANYPRELIMINARY ANDSCAPE PN --_- u � 4 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 17 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item tsin 3n- Addotonnal UafermQls Presented 2t ting 13) Design /Operational Restrooms Restrooms 99P= ASPHAD SHINGIE ROOF r �j T.O. HORIZONTAL WOOD 21'-1ROD'OF . SIDING TO.WISHED FLOOR ' i .ons..—. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN INE COMPANY ..,e...�,..v,...... ..,L� a R '12/17/'15 Community Development Department- Planning Division '18 Design/Operational Issues Valet Operations LW 11111111 loll III III I 32 42 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 19 � I--- ----------SIL- --------- ---------- I �_ r+ I .,• �' E]li � srr IIEIf ��'I ���•���� ��EY��f+ Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmanal NllaferiQls Presented Qt ting 13) Noise Acoustical Study Projected Noise Levels Live entertainment Recorded music w• FftlmaM RWn LeNi MM RxpGeG Mutk aM WNxMf/Rns Oyn. Ltl Fbv Windows open/closed awn Exceeds PM standard Recorded music Windows open W °"E'""° Some residences Second floor 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 20 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Additional NgaferiQls Presented Qt ting Projected Noise Levels 13) Recorded Music - Windows/Doors Open rr - n - 5o dBA 45-46 21 P9d . � _ -_ Residential Exterior Evening ` Noise Standard l 50-52d r ® 1 B1 L 12/17/15 Community Development Department - Planning Division 21 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmanal UafermQls Presented 2t ting 13) Projected Noise Levels Recorded Music - Windows/Doors Open Figure II-4. Estimated Noise Levels with Recorded Music and Windows/Doors Open, 2nd Floor sm.asn — 0 EO 65 `L o ..ss syl,..11e gwol� 50.55 J Hd1W .1". Gl.,......A,yuR l].]01s WIEIAND ACOUSTICS 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 22 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmanal NgaferiQls Presented Qt ting 13) • • • Conditions Limit patrons to dining Limit access to area on the patio restrooms Require fixed windows Posting "courtesy" signs on SW corner Additional design Close doors and specifications windows when live/recorded music Final design acoustical occurs and at Zo : oo pm analysis Close loading area at 10 : oo pm 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 23 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 ting 13) Lighting • Glare 3-foot- high landscape area to screen parking lot Compliance with Outdoor Lighting Zoning Standards Highly- reflective exterior building materials prohibited 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division zq Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 ting 13) Parking 356 spaces required by Zoning Code 250 spaces provided 1o6-space shortfall Valet Plan increases parking to 294 spaces Actual parking demand = 310 spaces 16-space shortfall addressed by off-site parking 12/17/15 Community Development Department - Planning Division 25 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmanal UafermQls Presented 2t ting 13) • ffmsite • BaysideShopping NEWPOR' DUNES LINDA ISLE ARBOR ISLAND Rnr-AID 1% aFGi6lNNN iiiin 0 11111111111111111 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 26 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No 3n- Addotmanal UafermQls Presented 2t ting 13) Coastal Access a.o-foot-wide Vertical Access �...,I AE a. IM \ CIF/C C � �.'• ;m If- � 'M'I OAST Public :u�'�\ ,wa Dock �n. .% urs rs :va PARCEL, a ,a. PARCEL Z PARCELp3 C► � PARCEL 3 \ 1 P.M.NO.93206 i� i t , Ii t t I , > III 12/17/15 Community Development Department- Planning Division 27 MINI!, r 46 yI *i a ti 4 M I For more information contact: Patrick J.Alford, Planning Program Manager 949-644-3235 PaIford@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) r~ / B \ — w - -J• z `` C�fjC C rFo as \ eat --- 0 0 9 _®0 Irk pq ,,�pp�q,, i `bd cL I t. / - - ------- t - ---- I r°{.-,.f pgprd grCNEH9g1 -"r. j ! f S _ gppp :D EA' COAST i. I LLL I® �r ! I`SSTORY7 HIGHWAY J YYmwi'rrr� ❑ (]—] ( �] I BUILDING ° ° — — — — — —1 — —�L 4. _ — —— —O O O 20 — — - — — - — - - Ln Ln Ln 01, - _- - `-- - r� y ' 40 � " 36 32-.i 32 L� j 32 32 - - - _ _ - -r-- 40 40 36 36 , 32 32 32 32 . ° r;. oil - 32 _ / 4� 36 36 32 32 �/ 32 32 30A , I - 32 a, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -- --- Ln � Ln � � j O O 40 36 36 ,. z �R , 32— �\ U 32 32 32 � a _ - -_ � ADA ADA 36—� `_- L 1 ( 32 32 �� l \�, 32 32 � ' 32 30 1 36s 36s '� ________ _. „ ' _.__._.._.._._._.._..__._.._ 30 4� 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 - -_ 32 36 Marina Property " burton Concept P I a n Q 15 30 60 Landscape Architecture Studio December 2015 project 12.028 Planning Commission - December Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) r y • � Fair\T ` . F Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) amu_ - , ;.r�xr wai ,ems! � ._emm r djl'srn� ,iek-^fp i a m, Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) cy 4 - �I�i�lllll e Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) r~ / B \ — w - -J• z `` C�fjC C rFo as \ eat --- 0 0 9 _®0 Irk pq ,,�pp�q,, i `bd cL I t. / - - ------- t - ---- I r°{.-,.f pgprd grCNEH9g1 -"r. j ! f S _ gppp :D EA' COAST i. I LLL I® �r ! I`SSTORY7 HIGHWAY J YYmwi'rrr� ❑ (]—] ( �] I BUILDING ° ° — — — — — —1 — —�L 4. _ — —— —O O O 20 — — - — — - — - - Ln Ln Ln 01, - _- - `-- - r� y ' 40 � " 36 32-.i 32 L� j 32 32 - - - _ _ - -r-- 40 40 36 36 , 32 32 32 32 . ° r;. oil - 32 _ / 4� 36 36 32 32 �/ 32 32 30A , I - 32 a, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -- --- Ln � Ln � � j O O 40 36 36 ,. z �R , 32— �\ U 32 32 32 � a _ - -_ � ADA ADA 36—� `_- L 1 ( 32 32 �� l \�, 32 32 � ' 32 30 1 36s 36s '� ________ _. „ ' _.__._.._.._._._.._..__._.._ 30 4� 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 - -_ 32 36 Marina Property " burton Concept P I a n Q 15 30 60 Landscape Architecture Studio December 2015 project 12.028 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at N eeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA201 -113) I � 1 - o --- r—r EllI I � I VALETI I i 7 I � ---- — J ------- A j STA I 13 0 .. . .0 - - - - - - - - O O ( `� 0000�e�o�oo�eaa0000v000aoaeewooaoeaevo°ovee°seas°oe PUBLIC WALK PUBLIC WALK _ 0 °°ooe�° I ° Q I I °ossa O Lu 00o0cLu O I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I ° 0 0 I � I I I I °eva<o<oee°e L______________J I I I I ROACH oe°o I I 76 , [Ell O O o BAR / L UNGE O O 00 I F TOTAL GROSS BUILDING SF : 14,252 SF o N o� o� I 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � I \ h NET PUBLIC AREA : 9,030 SF p o0000� I _„ _- COAT MEN WOMEN DECK DINING AREA : 1 ,255 SF CHECK ❑ 00000 � I I � II I II II II INTERIOR SEATS : 377 SEATS EN Ry HdIsT DECK DINING AREA SEATS: 40 SEATS I I O oDoDo( O OHO 0 _-- -I- - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 00 � � - (� � ��� o I O 0), 0000P I I Ili IT I Ali O 00P �00 Jt- Nl p DINING i I — — KITCHEN/BOH SERVICE 1450SF I III 80 SF ��� I .\ I ats l 4960 SF 820 SF I I I oOoDo I III O oDoo l L4 ocOo�Oo�Oo \ 000 I I - 000 \ - - I p CYy O � - -- - - - - - - -- -- 1 - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O O�OO�o O - - - - - - - - - -I- - -I- ODOOO o �OZDO \ l p t9ts 580 SF I l 480 SF0 32 seatsDD i - - - - 71 �OD�Oo00 \ II I I I I - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - o � 0000 " I ' Ml:wm 0�0�00 � II oDO0o0 � O n JI 0 20 0 0 I N FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 12- 15- 15 Scale: 1/8" = V-0" NEWPORT HARBOR 0 IRVINE COMPANY Since 1864 NEWPORT BEACH , CA COPYRIGHT p 2013 BALDAUF CATTON VON ECKARTSBERG ARCHITECTS Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials PreseNed a"i'Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) -=�c. l _ i; VIEW 1 - APPROACH NEWPORT HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o- Additional Materials PreseNed a"i'Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) 10 VIEW 2 - ENTRY NEWPORT HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA • • a411 • • ' T y n � s r ..,e �I �t ' ����_ @^ . I !�lll _,. ems=• _ � -- , . �i-• ��� a... _ ,■.� f.-. on b��i,11111111 I��lil�, IIIIiiI � ` .III � +ii u��I, •� III 1 � .IIIIII ''fII ice . IIICC7679' y� '�.f - • .'T'+s I • tee a �.. e7\ El c v • ' • ' ' • • a • • ' I I Aff 7 j illi nulll Illlli \ � � — _ •- t�[� r\, I`IIL) � I, i `\ \���� �- 1 x ��^�e(y1X" .�- �� � \ aZ .j�� s S II IIIl3i!e.11e ,.- a .,� _ .� ♦ %4.. �F tz` � s�-s#K1R �^5�,.�r f i 11 Ilr� MEW— Jill I lit I � J gg *j �t:t l, , . � 11 L�i1C I III i ja�E eE° III a�1: .�9 c yl II BCV Planning Commission - December Item No. 3o- Additional Materials PrA'e"Neda"N` eeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) ► gi I �. �'� G 5 �_ -, .�� - 11 ✓�- II l� 1- �Ii�Vu I m '` 1,. �-, ."j,1 ♦1�1�- - _�� ,��II I. -�„ „ i,, _ _ t.:I_ -.� ® 1'�: I - „L. �� I�Iiihlr �''� I�►- _ I_r�i. .,'� �.��F.1'_1'.� —����.��.��---. ■ r I L,. _� I ” I U I • ,��IIIIIII�, @I@� il�llliu■ -_4- ,I - - _ '�'�L.,�i,-�.�' „ F'RAN�O 537 i�� B ♦ 4 SOUTHWEST CORNER f —_ - _�� ������ \ - � 11►�` ova, '�� � �.< Mol- 404 _ 1 4 n O OT 111111111P 111111A11111111111AIIII�_ ��� � . 11111111J1111AI �� _ ��� _ y vee � 4 j'r�• � ►•" �, \ 7/ „\,1p\\\1\11\II\\I\I\I\111(1111111,11111111 I � , 1 o 10AA\5�`AA1`AVIIIPAA1AA11tV11AAAA �A � � BCV • Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials PreseNed at'Meeting Balboa Marina West ;ee side (PA2015-113) v G < VIEW 6 - NORTHEAST AERIAL NEWPORT HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Pres60edd'ATM' eeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) j Mw i t., n_ e � ��w � • i gym �.� .•. - t i VIEW 7 - FROM BAR NEWPORT HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA y� I c � T .I 'fall N f oll WIN all Q121 IL; 1 10 �1 �j ■ � IL - Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials PrMMWAI'Meeting Balboa Marina JW&§LJandside (PA2015-113) mom I�I � •r OLL �mie'*+�rwwwP�rT�=,n�;>r-rY7M!•.�-.w4 ---- L I-� I I - J VIEW 9 - FROM SOUTHWEST PAVILION ■+�■ NEWPORT HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) u l4k r NO, i •0 ' " - a 4Ll ' { ►'tr� �il ./ f '�YI +hili -ry • • • ,i S r' t r R 1 f �'�� �..�. �-^rr T T , )FPO � � �� fFA F6 A � 1 - �e f' „ %4L km�-1 ar a f # r' , r 't '�"-'•' -r r,� :'y�'3 . �� _. .. . ' j '"�7,� X11# __ °"fr;�,.. I i{ yy� � �' �L � � iM1X �' 'q9q.b ( �,. p ?� � f�:, • � � :aT )• LTJ r ��>•� :y+ � RL '�. s x , � � �,• 6♦ f +"- �11 � �; # � R� y � ,r••:' ,y„ j, _ vv '' �}JI b �.F 'erT' j4 7 sl -�.P ''R '+-: 7�' Orf T�: a. ��, 1 �i'j � lA � 1 F ��� err ^ ,. �,�'. { • " �n , n I res 50. _ - }. 'a; -�a.r 4. } - 1'. .9 ri• IM. t ,!r � • N/F � 7 �� .� .4Y,.,.ft 's 410 A - e�a�r q•� � 4 a-r }f +� '...- ., �- 7 �. 1 .f r '1{� i �I' �� '�'� !j/�r) �r - - O �l. ` ,o4if�A �..b," '.<'�, •. -- r: / f '�• �� ,a ' - - � F. . . �s. t ;.'�,r Ry'�r� �.ih� + . }� �'�J r t.�.r .•1` ,�, � ..iP,�V� �. 3 " „�, - .•�� t �: •1 a - �:,. * '�1@ �t a-- +.. !., j rk,ni« :,�,'� ZTI :!, � � T � gC 1J6 +fy •� ,� * i #�Y►. r. -- 1 _ � - . i a. #l%r ■�`. w,,y _ 3a ^ b o- 'r'�i T�f•e 4 .SII y� ^I �. '4 �, .�'f '1 ■ r �+y. . ..�{ ..,y Yp. b, ' �. �1 _ -+r:•d.' ! $,'I'. a.N r4 ` �` r 4 1 ,b ! 4_.4 _. � `. Y. . } fl ��. _ ��'•'�'`- `.+� fa � -_sy` - ti ��. .�- : .����..� .,I' -r ',. - F^ �+7{ �;'I�,r ,�i� � � � �� �!!r e _ - � ! ! .. (yr+ y.r �y - - f s_ ^ ! . r �- � may♦ .l- ,. �y '� - 1 �� �'� l I y 7 I,�y � _ T +'I, ` - , 3 � �5 7 �?L}� �' • ~ , • �i:�R � et�� A;�+� .- � � i � Y' } •, 'f�_.v.� �4� ( � • !i/ � •� 4' + ad '9aa1� 1-_ t .. . -.'„a �, I,P« _r F' • rr �'r y I ,�,lwra , ,r - .r' /7': J 'e+�, {�,� �w 1 ♦ v f w - Yc s 4� *RYp 4. fa - .r - -`�.•S • - _ '"11'.a, °?. �+. .w • ' .� r :.'. ,F f - 1 �qy 'S• ,� ! �- 1� lj�s - 51C .r - � ! 6 ti• - •., :< + - 1 .r r # I - -�•,a�Jy,r e4 i e►�"' R#, . r ,.� - aZi `f '#R'�• - - � ••. .dca{ - - i w114w - -s�.t R � « .. f �r r _ - r .. ..' ,♦ ir - _ _a. _ . �" _ *. 7s, :�� r �;w� @I.. � 3. T, S ; ' �' , _ � ,i.- a a,• Y, � "� 4 r � J4 •C - y saw. �:. } .. � � •R: #. ,. ...•- • � • - _ � fig, �4: ! �l' :• ..-:."! - �4,,{ � '4? � y Z, i I .. r r " ��� ',�1 ~E - :•Y'-,i:: + C ♦ 1 e � � _ . .. _{ /0.ti �,- i � i. 4 �• �'� i n .. 'r "f- r, f e '4111T' I . -� ��". � .: •. .., � � _.- �_ - . .` 1 � 7►. FD. -'w11�W� r n Jff} ""..+ • ! � 7 r- r 5 7 y ��,. ' ?'t• �.� -.y- r r } � ` • a,� '# �r _ � 4'w#.� s -. 1 _. t. y � a, s.6 . w_ s �'`, i • y ! �. � - .�� �. ,� �� - l„�Vj r � '� '� � � -y .f' •..,- a"'s yr♦ ' {�` ' . `*` � r° !,ti ab' ,'�!' aw T - `�� h r':Atr.�r •:a. I • °14 4 .y� I __ � ./�a.+ - - . . i/' „� . - �yyt cl4' - 4.M '��14 ; ,+ ?.s t� ¢ "'w!' ... _+�_ ..,, .' d •e4- W+ +. _i 4^p '+ ,1�,. ��` �� -'a TJV � �J y n a r. r • y,,. L '` _'� R �; f ::`: ' r '•b:'{0.i W "ys ' �' L.._,� `Y , - .�' - _ :. a _ ' e { , o - _. •. � � � r � Nf y`'� '' A' "-�� _ f T � ,!� �+' s ,, • ,,Ifb ! � , V� e'.�r -t " t t i r JIF ^ : }: •f .•i � + - w M �w N w ,- _ R i - , s 'M, "�y ,,. 1A' r N f V,,. +f t 1 * 1 ♦r 4Y.+: a a � ■ . . .: P. RJ. ?x. N. `�. -� s ti { y } _ _ R. r b 1 ' . M #• .: - -s S a_ Pj A� - _ i!" ♦2. -� r ,;, :f- • y i a sr�, {�"1 '�" sJ� rr. '1 y °; 4 1, R + Y x '� 7 = 1'y y_ya ', 4 s - '� .,�. a Y•.�4.` _ ..a - f - _ } k y SGS �'! i _ �:✓ gr � , F ' ° b' x... I r `_ • - _ 'R- �r. �a I� ��* y � "r !� " '-� ' *'� _ r, T'_; -_, « 1 : '�'-`'•'.-', # _� 1 ? �r r � �y; ", :i F,Y st4 � or .*, _< _ ` ,� ' !. .�` - ., kr•'- ,s � .R '*,� _ ° � r'^ "� T,�.-'°r➢ , r S Z•' Y ti 'Tr a 1 T,•�,,�' � s ro ! .: k 1 e � t r t'� ..; � 1 _ -'`� Y`9 \ i. w'� • T 1 -� rr" " !.T-" y,. :� - - J a` R - .. Y C. - •e �` ,a � -- '"_ 1' ' �P �j,R1, �' i. �' � �"a 9 -j . i'+r,.` _ � -.+✓1 .. � '� !, �, t X 14 d i �^.r''S>f-+ 'f b` Ap s � • r a.r r I rn# „1. ti�� � 9!A- � 4_ }�� .•aa,.. -e A .a`� �,.�(� � M w� . . .. ' a :� . - - �" 1 #1 ' ; ti. . ♦4 r. ' 4 � _ - - - , L"J °� _ � :�n SaF• ;„�;+r k` ' -! 'l�.r,471- r , - ;f .. u k � ! �. .� 0.s =-�:�-'" '_�' � tt_�. - r r�- _� b>• - 14 +- _ _ � fir'" �, .� � a.� _��'`"� _'_, r� a J • }y Sb + i,. „�'rr' r :r •" - a-1: tLabs _ } 1P , 1 y 6 ` I , 5 �I, 1 p� Y i - f '-.�."('�•71w!'rw'r•L'-..•IW4/lI ♦ ___ _ a u - .V `.♦ k-tea s .+rla l.�.l.1 T " re _ r _ ,1' _. . r_`T•- �3-..R,rt4.�•�.�. a. i - _ - - '-Ve-.- ..- .-a--r s- - ___ > a=r. - t , 4}' _ 1 t f 4 .. . - - - � _ -. �--r`+•�Kairwr-�,. . err®•. _.. - -_�- .:• ,, � s_ � -6 z �.,. .. �.�:.,�w'R��w sr�i :��"" a - _ ,- _•. 7 Pe ..�.� t"k`- "--.' irl�A'Y 'L-rir�r,��.•r-�- }�'e_ ._ - - _ ,. .+rt 't' ',°i " ., ar.. a -_ . - .. .�. °r1 - - - - - _ --�'La•.tr „- -..Y..�' ;(°rry•II T�Via..V. _ i � .�1'�iltaz�•� i+ 1F� �.. � - y.�Y�r}�._y_,y� i�•1 } _ v c,7f. r+.� F• +.w+3:�� .w#q1,�.y�� �1 ' . .. � �_ A� `'�' 'r M1� r%+ `: v��. a _ .'' f " r „Me,F'i _, ,'T . • & •_• a.' - e • - . ..r a,a• -J '., '.'�'"'•b �i� -r-. ..r - .i, r� :f+�ra ♦ 74 _ "riC'? �k�i� hi `k,�y, e�'*Y+.... ' r� h '�.��"r' .a .r° Y - _T, r"_ '.�•1'k .- ,r`�"r- ""lt'�:'rJi +r a.��' ��`l4-:� `--'�"- 4 7 -. r `. ,�<+ -�S,,.. :..a - r . - - v• -as, -tom r6 y .ce`"- _ ., r '�.�,b'h►"•►' ���� y. �1:�-q,�- •z"' � a4 - ,i,r• aP`";.41'' d - ';r w{ 'yam`S7�-+ .. T.w... .:eF -'L ' .r4, •� - .�" t.� . r' 'm..�,.� � µ Q - - �,r _ .. ,-' ,•*,tea ,,-.� �14E'.�t �_ d,'l.. 51w -`'r4- 'r' � �s !•. _. - A_�=.- L�,. _ . . _ ,#P�1G r #Y7 a ryk r a.y r_ R # - s 4 T _ _ � A�, 't'izJlkrs' - - -,. _ ♦ �5��' . ° w �°r �'_�lr�_ti�r. . . -A��++ •�' �1r"� _ r`^S��* �:r 0.•'d "'-#' .'. .:. ,. ,.. ,�w "� -_ _° ". ._ _ .- �. - r i � �+'[!' ! i � _ - _ `��T _ -.iris:} �.-q,.4 •F ., -+. . . '. .,- -. .. 7 - • . -_.i- �"'+ m . i a" • - 1 +f i+f'4 f - i .. - ,. 'tit. T 4 ' aFff�, - _ a '.,' -P: Ar.f,•' r a _ _.. , _ - _ at _ � y�. -�+v _ � ter-.k _ w !.•ft . -�. �., ..,yds''`. , ' ,� •a - - ,; - - �� ->r._. Tr. �-•_. -. -. _ . , ,- 5 "T rk'i r !�, • f _ ��, - - y _ ''� .,, . ," '.+, �r1Y�r _ �.,r►'1`a•�-. ,: „ .� . � : � .' , e�I .. N, ,.} - - '' _ lr - '" r•.• r 4 f .. a • . ,.:14 4 _�; 7 ` Y F. r• - ' s " '�� jr .1 j w+i: • -�-. .E - " ¢. - r b� � 3e `a . "f'r, a IM. . 'A� fz . ... w i4.� "'t}' ♦•�.'iT ir' . _. .. Yf yr -r ` . ,. •- . . .., -` - i. . a9" }`f � :'k� + � A '{(b` �' - ,+ - , F _ _ +s - - ,• •_s• r ."# +# r t + r f „ - / ..y, • "VIAL f� �'1a,`i '„ J, „'6� r 'S.i •`i.�, -.$ .!-K,.. _ .E'y 't• 1,._.,�•. 'i' r r , 1�/!' _. r 'rYr w .,.s ••R: y - ,., '�4t 711 - J, `.,h,.--.• F -" - f % • r '_;r` .. _. � .,: ♦,+';•. 4, ,` - .. .. -_. . - -. - - .. � - - r .gyp � ' .. . •+'r -a6+ �• .>..,�.,, � R 0.tl '..:� '�., 4; .rte_ .+/ WxA.� 11 . '{. ,� *,,��!!� �, ,. #• 1' •.'. ' L 'F 'Pr` 'rte+.- 1: • - -w, -_:aliFR r h ,. �t: -�wY ri . # \� 'w 4r s .�C'�' ✓ Y-..c •,f .: 1 r r � _.- -, �} -ti . ,.„ /,f , � b r.r =i <°�.^}�a .. ._ ., l' ti '+Iq } -4" y,�� t °4[ � •� - ` ��T'+ r a w F.� i. ,. �.. °�� � •, p.- s_ wa,e. �/, 1 sd?+` sf. � - ,Tl � -{d•,-.'- .' ��). w�, -Y° r'rJi.�a1.' - '1. +/�'r yy �+� - ++ - - - :. �. 1 ,� 4 a.� L ,✓. _rb „ ,� :6 �„ ' w �.'."'1 r T -" t ��I- C" r .. ,L s , _ ��� r. ;:.. ..a.._., ,a_. >._ _. .- ... a _V -1( 3+- Y n -f! -^' P' r a.� ,�. `bb I - •�'� -� ' *'tati!'3er •., . -- I -#4' J., .f rn .. Y e .r .. �. r' .� �, �.4 ' .. _ Y i •1 4h 9,._ .w#r r "#" _ Ir .. w.-� �. ., '..�"+-R' •r r:"- � � r '�. �L` r ..lwe♦ b . ' -'�•' , _. • Hyl ` r .e - •. FJ b '�, ' - .: # T 4 !!s-. - 7-lk .. J r. , . ;.ti ��4'aS,- 1 f`. #"' 1 x • '" - '"� - 'S, - y, ,: /fit �. _. ' - _ 1 y y r. .R •,.Id.. y.l`„ lie %r - ."�77'. a. �.. _.. i_. -..�' ♦ :.• wF` .^Y1C : - � -r,;.. �''� f,: - � ,. - .. .r-+1. ♦ply'. '-�r. _ - - -. - ,: .� _. � ♦ „>C r _ � ,aLn �4 _ � ! ,�. � , �� :_ ♦ ,.1 ` '.. , .v+.v .' 1� ♦.,F. � .�.. � 't. �'* .tel •r- �ar �b•,. �" �. �'d ��,wr7' �, � <. ' . - _ ,.. - -�. ' - qIk':. .r 'at ,s a0.�c r a(s• ' .. < I . �'',7y '�:� R 7 , , r�R , _, „„ t. �~!s" .-, ,.o+-��.�"b Y..r�-.1�. ,'b�� •.A' _ r• {r.y..�a'^ '�i �I"J. - Y ra '�`.el+' �Itt - ...: `? ' .� --.� t= --. •,". !'+ - ¢ e - _ , , „s �+�,.{ t iV4 lyS- 1� .a l '_ .}-••-- - - f ,tr _ 4.1�-+1' _ _ r - _ A 2b9'.J„ _ _ _..--fl 4 T ! Trs s. . ♦. '4�F r.J. •7 T S '�P'"•Y -z-. !A'- a • � .'-iC �" a _��.1.'.• - -' I'4 iwi"� • - 4 r _ - 1 Y_ P' a .le -.Y e�1�,1�. f -'•tu: 1 • - -'i'. - r un _ . _ � '.' ti. • #� k}'. :ry, « +. i�`. Iw al+ ' '. ..• '- �. .a , . 17.`A .ri ' l. '�.'4 ♦ <'S Fr ` 1�= 1. , d.i,f. . I - :�. - ^-p.r L• ±-- _ = - "«0..+: •$, 'r r�.-�r _ Y �y=','fb•- .i y.may' 1, J # • �'. . +If '1.F• rr.ry t• T7r _ _ i '1.- y .�( �,r '_ • -r _ _ ,� _ _ '°T � ,l' + i '1 _ ^}L• v:".4 � ` � R •�A` �i � � r��1. „ .,, f_ 1.:y,` { { • f '� , �.. _ � T ��, " h � 1� C r�,: id i _ 1 1 'p 0. 2 .-,.. T.. .. ,�_T. �, w - .. . + s � � P�- , .: �, o- _ r�,..r.�,.. .Y /� 1 r 3 .JI_ ♦ ` } _ •K I/ f j },i "�.. /F _ .� �. .1 -r'•• '�� . . r . -:^f Ar" ,._. P a:• i'F1'4i-t.. - '�:, k _ : . . 4 � 'u/ iF . 7-:', . I fY' ' • i~ --+i.n � �'� _4.� ; ra•A4'�'"'.'.-r � R �`" s. „ � r .F',. d. _ ...4. '� . ..r +,� "I�a q ,•` _`} .f � - -ir•• i _ LF � • ' 3 ., �'. C1"_7f Sy`i ,f • .� Y .'r s <.k1�tr[. .4 w '` fti .. . r 4' � 1 s "k-r- : .I r e, � r u d1: , `- 'Y /+ • +z•i<':. ~ - s r _e a i- �.n4^ .. _ '/� ..'1°_•,�{a. -� r �. .-.. a.- .- •" . - „ _r+I°gnr';�5 y _� !,._ r. y .�_ w '• - �'M1 tri j' �� f� .-7P b i _ ..+ r 'brs-. � .r'i7.' 't*Y`��4i �� e. ..s 5,! .r .- .--. ;> - 4�P_ ." �i 'i/ "•"-- - u -� -�x 4'�ll� •�- , i'4F _ - ., R . `az . _ i:,w_ �'P� �� x 1r'� �. y .- r y •.r .,.',;''� . .. - _..:. ; .. "�J�{ Fr- +. � r cs _ r,-. , `mss C _ :.., - - - - .w _ _ f ,q - �•r, 'CO - L - - ' .• f s fl1.. � 4+L.1 dY41 w .Irl► _ _.I_� .. - ... �+ � a •.r' r' •'i �Y'♦ J•�,,4 >;w.l� 1� 4' rr��ls �.'r"': _ -' � :, a: -- .... �•. ,rt s ,. I, r f - : '.,- ' "- ' ' - :. f'�' Lf« -._.. - `#. 1 �r+1'.. �'�_�� „-•�- - P .. -+a Y . '�' - ' > a w ,- _ . . .. � ,. - .10. - ..... n 0. v 4' '` ti^.�'lY{•q" ••. • _ r' - ~.eM * s + .;" - • r" --. • __ "? .r '- .-.. . .. .. _ Mt r . -=h a e .M ' . p _ r. - }' ..,�a,_ , ....•T _ C -yl ,"�a., - yr s.. - -� - ; y., /ry+:�^w _'/a•'. - _ *` _" �: �fR-.. S. � !S ,r a V : _ . r r.,17� r -�. -._ i r 1. ^{ 'r. r, t. �, «: ..•+"` .]ZI - f. '•4 a. r„ _ - , _ m ,., �. - .Gf . J,r, # ,• . ,.... _ ,s r., '-;'F .« b 1 - - - - "Y ti • r•� �,,,� + ''�. 4'�P. �.r „s` _ r� �' - r/ ., `-a ,tri `r . . j1.= - -t' , a t-. . ^ L. ;. _ - R '-'7 . -. _ w _ 1[ y { , -. F. _•..- r,+ rr.a• - .' - 7 1: - .r„'' ,r1 R - _ I- .�a 1. r. _ . 1 .. f .. - AI d'. • ._'R+: -f!r .� i� JF � . .�_.. . . .fr'. .. rr• �_ .- . Y . r _�..i. "�r �.'�'r � }..q T'� - 4'� a ` 1 .,. c�r �r.1 v . s 4 � . ,as� �_ .� � rr° ! ,� J' ,. ._ • r, j Py. _+ 1 '' ��r '7 4' '-J `,t:'�. _ "">r !- - , -r A -• _ � '� I- �� .- f.. ., r - ,.+J r =,! • k<'.' I r ar r', � C~ 1-', � � � 'Y _ll l I ` i.� _ � � 'e- .. ± ,r r' f: • r �' � I� -rr' ..r � -J••1="4:�yY 9,iC Y ' Y r R. �. � } MC' I4 =a' r � _ .Y' .y T1L Y v e _ .r ';a' � l i a � _. � r '- � -, ' !' '�'ayJ,'♦`.�T Y -,' Y_ � �P i�� t� � - - aR- f.� • .��_ - 1 .. _.� - - _ •,1 �'Y ' � �"41'�'► - �'� _ s� -' � ,.,r" -- �r''Ab � ''. �/-. :�,�..-+. -�.� - • . . a�`! "-f,' . � � ,I:,, _ ' . ,I '. s fYY Fr r 1 �. f,." J 1 :4, - � +t �,' y.,w'�.. '.-t-:.'t' - °�� 1 .. r • .. f." s,,.� �Y _� ,�`�al/ •lr.. b<w /•'+-"'� s'•- ,.�� �• ,.t r .�-4i�_ .•y'.... _ P v i b , , - • .. a,bs ' - "►;_r. - � ,�. , ►> .:i'�. ,. -s � - w - �. _. ....,, . -1,¢ r ..a�. „,-x . . i� ,� .1 1� y •'rte �,.�� .. Yj ti r M =a � I Imir �_ ling Commission 19 er 17, 201 iitional Materials Pr at Meeti i Marina W s and A2015-11 r p - f �-• � •aJ.�L _ __ _ ��` ����t a _� �.�� OL i ;1 NIL GLZ .110 Por-I u i - y l l' r .t -S + ' v r• .�F�s'p � ,"ate °` �;A• t" � t '. , . ,gig .,,,�. ' "�`� �' ,�`� �, - ��{ ' Ips, - i _ .R .Salo �Y ' �+ #.. � ���} '•F 4 dl i' �.p•y+y �y 1• .++' '.A'4.ILL. .. � _ 4 a• — ° E. v .A { APPI J` . I Planning Commission - December Item No. 3o- Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) �1 r a � 2�d I Planning Commission - December 17, 2015' Item No. 30. dditional Materials Presented at Meeting Bal b Marina West Landside PA2015-113) ' 4 r �r ` AOL � lk A`°' 11-7 � = -• � J _ '�j},.. � y low �h .��4-� $ -� 1 A ` `moi Planning Commission - Uecember I f, ;eUlb Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) SHADE LOUVERS WITH SKYLIGHTS METAL ROOF CLERESTORY GLAZING GLASS RAILING DECORATIVE STEEL SLIDING GLASS WALL SYSTEM GLAZING BEHIND EXT. WOOD DECK T.O. ROOF + 37'9" 7 � ROOF -- + 31 '-0" T.O. GLAZING ®®®® ®® ®® ® ® + 231-611 T.O. FINISHED - - + 13' 0" LL�]L L1_iyJ=2_ 1: _1 M k ji rk T.O. SEA WALL -- + 9'-0" 6h -" MEAN SEA LEVEL /+ 0'-0" WEST ELEVATION SHADE LOUVERS WITH SKYLIGHTS METAL ROOF CLERESTORY GLAZING DECORATIVE STEEL MASONRY/PLASTER GLAZING BEHIND WALLS T.O. ROOF + 37'9" ROOF 7 � + 31 '-0" T.O. GLAZING + 231-611 T.O. FINISHED + 13'-0" 7rT T.O. SEA WALL + 9'-0" rk MEAN SEA LEVEL , -/+ 01-011 EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 1 /8 "= 1 '-0f/ BALBOA MARINA RESTAURANT 41D IRVINE COMPANY NEWPORT BEACH , CA Si., 1864 \Ic FA ONES 7IF77777771:: WIM ir ■��,■.II_ �. .I_ _ — ■111■LIT I■■■■■II�II�I�. 1111111111111111111111111,+I.I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII►IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllllllllllllllllullllll- 1111111111 IIiI VIII I IIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIlllilllllll�l�lll�lll�llllilllililuiii ��� �� .. IIIIIIIIII� ._ � III�Illllllli II IIII IIIIiIUiIIRi`iillll IIIA Il@I'. £ o� IllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIII } FM71 Intl I, - - - - - - - - - - — \I • I\ IIIIIILIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllll1111111111111111111111111111 L ■■ ■�, IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�II!�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIII �IIIIII II"II�IIII . ,r{ ?1'1 f . " M ; 1111 lilllillllil , {I IIII IIII III "U' .N III1mill • " Iulls IIII;u;9111 I 1 VIII 1-11 III�II{IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - . j ���mm11111 IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIuIIIIIIIII llll�lll� illllllli11111ii i11111111111111111111111111111111111 ' Fs�'� � 111111111111111111111111111111 COMPANYID IRVINE ---B A L D A U F C A T T 0 N V O N E C K A K T S K E K G Imo_ �i�►----, - _ _ -- - - - - �..�� r . , -�'-`Br�l�"`.>- � �`- ^� ._" � ., i►o ' €W:�� it Ilii � II. I ��1�_ ! � ii- -- _ � �' . - �:1 ^-_-- 1 , .anon°non1�10 ...,; uut ��►in, _ - - _ - - now mnrannnl nniennna,n". �1^,■ •ilk- - \ I/,•1 � a /'� -�__ ■■II-- - t pal n1w \{� !�_ ::,� 1 11 .1 - — — - - - I w Nm ,���.. nlnn i � �. ■ -- �- I,..-. '- - �� ■ � u,+ ' ,., �*�+n1 „�_, rti,�'1:' , .�. ..r:, /���I� unp1111 VIII II,. 1111nm1 w�• ,.a s9.■ -1 ■.� ice► / - - - _ IILII'i '. � - nnnl 1,1111 unn \ . _ 1 ■.■ it / 111 1011 n: X11111 IIIIiI �� _ „t a. It■y�.� . : fl+�' -- - 0101 ,d 1111111 wl- .. ¢� . , _ --- -- - -- nmumn ;, nnnelm � r` '' . „e _ , r� � ,�,� •' �/ - — - IOpl0ppj11IIIIIIIIIII! ;ick / nliml p, a _ 1,1■1 nl 1 1111111 Ilpum � ' / - nu onnlllllnmomnm ._ . ► / - - - 11111111/ - �_����,,� �■7 � � - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ 1� .M r . r �I1 FRANCO S47 1' 1' '�_ SAN it 4� u�-- - _--►_ – luuuu— Ra. _ — Woo � t ■ XTIN 11 SII r -- ���>a = i II I II IIIIINII i illl_III uu■. � L —�` �_ ,_ ._ �in l ® __ ---- _ � ---1111 1...- III u. l _�. -, ■1�I1 ' i55n all 11111111 VIII ���NI�II�IIIII I 5 �.`.�■i 1 � _'" �qA•�` .�.0,t' .� �,' lima � ■■■ •, Qi MEW WON- r Nil IRVINE COMPANY Sice 1864 ---B A L D A U F C A T T 0 N V O N EC KARTS BERG Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) r~ / B \ — w - -J• z `` C�fjC C rFo as \ eat --- 0 0 9 _®0 Irk pq ,,�pp�q,, i `bd cL I t. / - - ------- t - ---- I r°{.-,.f pgprd grCNEH9g1 -"r. j ! f S _ gppp :D EA' COAST i. I LLL I® �r ! I`SSTORY7 HIGHWAY J YYmwi'rrr� ❑ (]—] ( �] I BUILDING ° ° — — — — — —1 — —�L 4. _ — —— —O O O 20 — — - — — - — - - Ln Ln Ln 01, - _- - `-- - r� y ' 40 � " 36 32-.i 32 L� j 32 32 - - - _ _ - -r-- 40 40 36 36 , 32 32 32 32 . ° r;. oil - 32 _ / 4� 36 36 32 32 �/ 32 32 30A , I - 32 a, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -- --- Ln � Ln � � j O O 40 36 36 ,. z �R , 32— �\ U 32 32 32 � a _ - -_ � ADA ADA 36—� `_- L 1 ( 32 32 �� l \�, 32 32 � ' 32 30 1 36s 36s '� ________ _. „ ' _.__._.._.._._._.._..__._.._ 30 4� 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 - -_ 32 36 Marina Property " burton Concept P I a n Q 15 30 60 Landscape Architecture Studio December 2015 project 12.028 Planning Commission - December Item No. 3o: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Balboa Marina West Landside (PA2015-113) r y • � Fair\T ` .