MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Alta Vista Retaining Wall Project

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT / NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Alta Vista Retaining Wall Project

This serves as the City of Laguna Beach’s Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and local implementation procedures.

Name of Project: Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Project

Project Location: The project site is located in the western portion of the City of Laguna Beach, within the County of Orange. The project site is along the south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way for an approximate length of 450 feet (generally extending from 475 Alta Vista Way to 525 Alta Vista Way).

Lead Agency: City of Laguna Beach, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, 92651

Project Description: The existing retaining wall along Alta Vista Way supports the roadway and is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. Therefore, it has been determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. The City has determined the construction of a new retaining wall (a secant pile wall) adjacent to the existing retaining wall to be the best replacement option.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above- cited project. Such Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, by implementing the identified mitigation measures, the project’s potential significant adverse impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The reasons to support such a finding are documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City. Copies of the Initial Study, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting materials are available for review at the City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651.

For questions regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration contact:

NAME: Mr. Tom Sandefur PHONE: 949-497-0792 TITLE: Associate Civil Engineer EMAIL: [email protected] ADDRESS: City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651

Public Review Period: Begins: October 1, 2014 Ends: October 30, 2014

Public Hearing: Consideration of adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City of Laguna Beach Design Review Board is tentatively scheduled to take place on November 20, 2014, 6:00 p.m. at the City of Laguna Beach Council Chambers located at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651.

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, any comments concerning the findings of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration must be submitted in writing and received by the City no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2014, in order to be considered prior to the City’s final determination on the project. Should you decide to challenge this project, you may be limited to the issues raised during this public review period. Please submit your written comments to Mr. Tom Sandefur, City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT | OCTOBER 2014

PREPARED FOR: City of Laguna Beach

PREPARED BY: RBF Consulting A Company of Michael Baker International

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Project

LEAD AGENCY:

City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, California 92651 Contact: Mr. Tom Sandefur 949.497.0792

PREPARED BY:

RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Mr. Alan Ashimine 949.472.3505

October 2014

JN 139699 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1

1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1 1.3 Consultation ...... 1-2 1.4 Incorporation by Reference ...... 1-2

2.0 Project Description ...... 2-1

2.1 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting ...... 2-1 2.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning ...... 2-4 2.4 Project Background ...... 2-4 2.5 Project Characteristics ...... 2-4 2.5.1 Phasing ...... 2-6 2.6 Permits and Approvals ...... 2-6

3.0 Initial Study Checklist ...... 3-1

3.1 Background ...... 3-1 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 3-2 3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 3-2

4.0 Environmental Analysis ...... 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4.1-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ...... 4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 4.4-1 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 4.5-1 4.6 Geology and Soils ...... 4.6-1 4.7 Greenhouse Gases ...... 4.7-1 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4.8-1 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4.9-1 4.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 4.10-1 4.11 Mineral Resources...... 4.11-1 4.12 Noise ...... 4.12-1 4.13 Population and Housing ...... 4.13-1 4.14 Public Services ...... 4.14-1 4.15 Recreation ...... 4.15-1 4.16 Transportation/Traffic ...... 4.16-1 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 4.17-1 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4.18-1 4.19 References ...... 4.19-1 4.20 Report Preparation Personnel ...... 4.20-1

October 2014 i Table of Contents

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures ...... 5-1

6.0 Consultant Recommendation ...... 6-1

7.0 Lead Agency Determination ...... 7-1

APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ENCLOSED CD)

A. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data B. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment

October 2014 ii Table of Contents

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2-1 Regional Map ...... 2-2

Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity ...... 2-3

Exhibit 2-3 Conceptual Improvement Plan (Typical)...... 2-5

October 2014 iii Table of Contents

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.3-1 Construction Air Emissions ...... 4.3-3

Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions ...... 4.3-6

Table 4.7-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4.7-3

Table 4.12-1 Noise/Land Use Compatibility ...... 4.12-2

Table 4.12-2 Construction Noise Hours ...... 4.12-3

Table 4.12-3 Allowable Exterior Noise Level ...... 4.12-4

Table 4.12-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ...... 4.12-5

Table 4.12-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 4.12-7

October 2014 iv Table of Contents

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

IS/MND AND APPENDICES ON CD

October 2014 v Table of Contents

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 vi Table of Contents

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The proposed Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Project (herein referenced as the “project”) involves the construction of a new retaining wall adjacent to an existing retaining wall on Alta Vista Way that is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Laguna Beach (City) has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.

1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under the CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of the CCR, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project- related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration. Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code).

The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.

The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City.

1.2 PURPOSE

Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:

• A description of the project, including the location of the project; • Identification of the environmental setting; • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; • Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and • The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.

October 2014 1-1 Introduction

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.3 CONSULTATION

As soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines.

1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study, and are incorporated into this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Laguna Beach Community Development Department located at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651.

• City of Laguna Beach General Plan. The General Plan contains a vision for the future of a community and describes the desired future of development in general terms and through a series of policy statements. Laguna Beach’s General Plan contains mandated elements which required by the State Planning, Zoning, and Developments Laws. There are also two optional elements which relate to the development of the City. They are as follows:

Mandated Elements: - Noise Element; - Open Space and Conservation Element; - Safety Element; - Scenic Highway Element; - Transportation, Circulation and Growth Management Element; - Land Use Element; and - Housing Element.

Optional Elements: - Historic Resources Element; and - Human Needs Element.

• City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code includes the Subdivision Code, the Zoning Code, the Building Code, and all Uniform Codes or other codes or regulations of the state of California or the county of Orange duly adopted by reference or otherwise applicable to the city of Laguna Beach. The Zoning Ordinance, Title 25, of the Municipal Code, provides an official land use plan for the City of Laguna Beach to guide, control and regulates the future growth and development of the City. The plan is adopted pursuant to the authority of Chapter 838, Statutes of 1929, State of California, and the amendments thereto. The Street and Sidewalks Ordinance (Title 11) specifies coastal development permits, street work, and building and materials rules and regulations.

October 2014 1-2 Introduction

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

Regionally, the project site is located in the western portion of the City of Laguna Beach (City), within the County of Orange; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Map. Locally, the project site is along the south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way for an approximate length of 450 feet (generally extending from 475 Alta Vista Way to 525 Alta Vista Way). The project site is located within a hillside area of the City, approximately 0.2-mile northeast of South Coast Highway (California State Route 1) and approximately two miles southeast of Laguna Canyon Road (California State Route 133); refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is located within a residential neighborhood comprised of single-family homes. Alta Vista Way is a two-lane roadway providing direct access to residential driveways, and is equipped with curb and gutter on both sides. The project site is located within an urbanized area, and the entire site has been previously disturbed by development. The project area is located within a hillside area of the City, with a steep gradient towards the southwest (towards the Pacific Ocean).

Given the steep topography in the project area, the downhill, south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way within the project site is supported by a wood plank and post retaining wall built in approximately 1962. The wall supports the roadway along the nine lots on Alta Vista Way from 475 to 525 Alta Vista Way, a distance of approximately 450 feet. Over the years homeowners have developed properties adjacent to the wall with their private improvements encroaching into the public right of way. Many of the improvements include driveway bridges that span over and obscure the existing wall. An investigation of the wall conditions conducted in 2012 and 2013 revealed that portions of the wall are inaccessible.1,2 Of the areas that were accessible, some portions of the wall show signs of rot and termite infestation.

Review of all nine lots indicates that the homeowner improvements or modifications vary substantially within the right of way. They all have driveways that span the City right of way. The grade beams of varying types of construction are all located at the top of curb or within several feet. The City’s plank and post retaining structures have been built upon and surrounded by various improvements, such as small garden-type planter walls, and also have had additional height added to the retaining structure using materials such as stacked rock with mortar, additional timbers, and/or planks. Some of the driveways have relied upon the City retaining structure and/or backfilled area as part of the driveway design while others have designed the driveway to be independent of the retaining structure. Specifically, at 525 and 515 Alta Vista Way, there are walls and/or structures covering the area of the City wall under the driveway.

Various underground utilities occur within the roadway adjacent to the existing retaining wall, consisting of telephone, electrical, fiber optic, water and sewer utilities. In addition, a storm drain inlet box is located in front of 503 Alta Vista Way, which outlets through the existing retaining wall onto a mortared rip rap area.

Surrounding uses along the project site include single-family residential uses on all sides.

1 Geofirm, Geotechnical Review and Recommendations for Alta Vista Way Retaining Walls, January 9, 2013. 2 Geofirm, Addendum Geotechnical Evaluation for Alta Vista Way Retaining Walls, November 5, 2013.

October 2014 2-1 Project Description SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LOS ANGELES

COUNTY

W HI TT 142 IE R B LV D. 72 71 La Brea Habra IMPERIAL HWY. 90 Yorba Linda YORBA LINDA BLVD. 605 5 91 57 91 Buena Fullerton Park Anaheim 241

Hills .

R R

Anaheim O RIVERSIDE

. Villa S COUNTY Cypress W BALL ROAD N A Park R T

KATELLA AVE. N 15 R TE

Orange S . A Los E

405 D CHAPMAN AVE. V

Alamitos L .

B D ORANGE

Garden L

Grove R S

Tustin A COUNTY

O N

22 D P T

W O LV H E 55 N

B C

Santa E 261

B D

Ana O P O C RT

O A L N EDINGER AVE. A

5 I O

V N

Seal NER AVE. E WAR TRAB

Beach LV U P C D K . O W R R Y D Irvine D . I RV LIVE IN PO E 241 R TO 39 C L 1 E A R R N . TE D . R V D L R B 405 JEFFREY RD

R Lake

HARBO

Costa

Huntington S

D AN

Y Forest T N IT Mesa U IVERS A

A R Beach . G

D R R I T A

E Y R O

R U R W

K O H S O A T

B T N P L M E R A T J J O A R AQ 133 U M Y C IN Mission Viejo A A H O W N ILL S. S U K M CO E R L P R T I T I DO R O R IO N E

U N

P G

73 R O Newport R T P K N Y A R

A . O Beach M

Laguna O

N T

Niguel R H . E Y IL L Laguna W T K N 74 P A

Beach Y L

E N

L L E

T A D

V L

O N N G 1 S W E . H

O T

R San Juan Project Site C C F O

Capistrano R

R O

T S R

PACIFIC OCEAN

Dana 5 Point San Clemente SAN DIEGO COUNTY

5 Project Site

NOT TO SCALE ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Regional Map 10/14 • JN 139699 Exhibit 2-1 LOMITA WAY

Proposed Retaining Wall

A WAY ALTA VIST ALTAA

503 VISTA W 475 489 495

AY 481 509

515515

521521

525525

Legend ## Address Number

NOT TO SCALE ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Site Vicinity 10/14 • JN 139699 Exhibit 2-2

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING

As a roadway facility, Alta Vista Way does not have a land use or zoning designation under the City of Laguna Beach General Plan (General Plan) and City of Laguna Beach Development Code (Development Code). However, areas surrounding the project site along Alta Vista Way are designated “Residential Low Density” (R1) by the City of Laguna Beach Zoning Map and “Village Low Density” (3 to 7 dwelling units per acre) by the General Plan.

Within the General Plan Transportation, Circulation, and Growth Management Element, Alta Vista Way has a roadway designation of “Collector (Restricted)”.

2.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND

As stated above, the existing retaining wall along Alta Vista Way supports the roadway and is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. Therefore, it has been determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced.

The City of Laguna Beach has conducted a detailed investigation to determine the most cost effective, efficient, and reliable alternative to replace the existing retaining wall. These improvements are the subject of this Initial Study, and are described below in Section 2.5, Project Characteristics.

2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

As noted above, over the years homeowners have developed properties adjacent to the wall with their private improvements encroaching into the public right of way. These improvements impair the City’s ability to replace the retaining wall in-kind, due to substantial limitations on access created by homeowner improvements. Based on a survey of the affected residents and an analysis of the probable construction issues, the City has determined the construction of a new retaining wall (a secant pile wall) adjacent to the existing retaining wall to be the best option.

Secant pile walls are retaining walls that have minimal impact to the surrounding areas. Secant pile walls are constructed by placing primary piles with a drillable concrete, spaced at just under two pile diameters. Primary piles do not have to extend to a depth to achieve structural stability; the purpose of these piles is to serve as a closure pour between the secondary piles. Secondary piles are then placed between the primaries, and are drilled to a depth to achieve structural stability. The secondary piles would be reinforced with a rebar cage in addition to a higher strength concrete. As a result, a secant pile wall at the top of slope has the benefits of: 1) limited excavation and work area requirement; 2) relatively low amounts of vibration and noise to the neighboring homes; and 3) a continuous retaining wall curtain with high durability and a smaller temporary and permanent footprint; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Conceptual Improvement Plan (Typical).

The proposed project would install the secant pile retaining wall within the street, approximately where the existing curb and gutter is situated. The existing timber retaining wall would be protected-in-place and no modifications to the retaining wall would occur. The construction of a secant wall near the top of slope under the existing curb and gutter would be the most practical method of construction for long term stabilization of Alta Vista Way. The curb and gutter location would minimize conflicts with adjacent utilities and homeowner constructed grade beams. The secant wall would keep the roadway in place and also potentially reduce the encumbered right of way space. The curb and gutter would require complete removal and replacement due to the anticipated spacing for the piles/caissons of the secant wall.

October 2014 2-4 Project Description NOT TO SCALE ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conceptual Improvement Plan (Typical) 10/14 • JN 139699 Exhibit 2-3

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

As noted above, underground utilities are present throughout the project site. Utilities occur within a utility bank running parallel with the street and adjacent to the residences. The utility bank is located approximately five feet from the edge of gutter. Therefore, the proposed secant pile wall would be installed adjacent to/below the existing curb and gutter. The retaining wall would intersect utility laterals which service the residences. Bridging over utilities and utilizing soil arching in certain areas would allow the installation of the wall at these utility crossings. Where soil arching and bridging is not feasible, utilities may need to be temporarily disconnected for a short period of time and reconnected once the wall is in place.

During construction, half of the existing two lane road would be temporarily closed for construction activities and construction related vehicles, and therefore only a one lane width travel way would be available for circulation. However, the one-way traffic would only be immediately adjacent to the work zone, which would be approximately 120 feet long. The one-way traffic would be flag controlled for safe traffic operations. It is anticipated this would be a “rolling” work zone, where the contractor would mobilize in front of two to three houses at a time, and construct the retaining wall followed by curb and gutter repair.

The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 0.40 acre (less than 17,500 square feet) and would require the export of approximately 1,200 cubic yards of fill material.

Upon completion of the proposed project, the roadway, curb, and gutter would be restored to pre-project conditions.

2.5.1 PHASING

Project construction would take place in one phase for a period of ten months (from approximately March 2015 to December 2015).

2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS

The proposed project would require several City of Laguna Beach permits and approvals prior to construction. These permits and approvals are described below, and may change as the project entitlement process proceeds.

City of Laguna Beach: • California Environmental Quality Act Clearance • Site Plan Review • Coastal Development Permit • Grading Permit

October 2014 2-6 Project Description

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

3.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Mr. Tom Sandefur Associate Civil Engineer 949.497.0792 4. Project Location: Regionally, the project site is located in the western portion of the City of Laguna Beach (City), within the County of Orange. Locally, the project site is along the south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way for an approximate length of 450 feet. The project site is located approximately 0.2-mile northeast of South Coast Highway (California State Route 1) and approximately two miles southeast of Laguna Canyon Road (California State Route 133). 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 6. General Plan Designation: As a roadway facility, Alta Vista Way does not have a land use designation under the City of Laguna Beach General Plan (General Plan). However, areas surrounding the project site along Alta Vista Way are designated “Village Low Density” (3 to 7 dwelling units per acre) by the General Plan. Within the General Plan Transportation, Circulation, and Growth Management Element, Alta Vista Way has a roadway designation of “Collector (Restricted)”. 7. Zoning: As roadway facility, Alta Vista Way does not have zoning designation under the City of Laguna Beach Development Code. However, areas surrounding the project site along Alta Vista Way are designated “Residential Low Density” (R1) by the City of Laguna Beach Zoning Map. 8. Description of the Project: The existing retaining wall along Alta Vista Way supports the roadway and is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. Therefore, it has been determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. Based on a survey of the affected residents and an analysis of the probable construction issues, the City has determined the construction of a new retaining wall (a secant pile wall) adjacent to the existing retaining wall to be the best replacement option.

The proposed project would install a secant pile retaining wall within the street, approximately where the existing curb and gutter is situated. The existing timber retaining wall will be protected-in-place and no modifications to the retaining wall would occur. The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 0.40 acre and would require the export of approximately 1,200 cubic yards of fill material. Upon completion of the proposed project, the roadway, curb, and gutter would be restored to pre-project conditions. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding uses along the project site include single-family residential uses on all sides. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement).

Refer to Section 2.6, Permits and Approvals, for a description of the permits and approvals anticipated to be required for the project. Additional approvals may be required as the project entitlement process moves forward.

October 2014 3-1 Initial Study Checklist

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

ü Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources ü Air Quality ü Noise ü Biological Resources Population and Housing ü Cultural Resources ü Public Services Geology and Soils Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions ü Transportation/Traffic ü Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities & Service Systems Hydrology & Water Quality ü Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:

• Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources • Air Quality • Noise • Biological Resources • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Geology and Soils • Recreation • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation/Traffic • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality

The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Laguna Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.

For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:

• No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.

• Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.

October 2014 3-2 Initial Study Checklist

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

• Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

• Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.

October 2014 3-3 Initial Study Checklist

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 3-4 Initial Study Checklist

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item.

4.1 AESTHETICS

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ü b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ü within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ü of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ü

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Laguna Beach General Plan envisions Laguna Beach as a place of abundant scenic natural beauty, small-town village charm, and cultural diversity. According to the General Plan, natural vistas of the hillsides and ocean are very important to the quality of Laguna’s scenic corridors and should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Although the hillsides will remain, it is important whether these vistas present development or open space.

Short-term construction impacts would consist primarily of excavation activities, the presence of construction equipment, and signage and warning markers on roadways. It is anticipated this would be a “rolling” work zone, where the contractor would mobilize in front of two to three houses at a time, and construct the proposed retaining wall followed by curb and gutter repair. Due to the limited area of disturbance which would occur during excavation efforts and the temporary nature of the construction activities, implementation of the project would not significantly impact a scenic vista.

Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista during long-term operations, as Alta Vista Way would be restored to pre-project conditions after the completion of construction. The project would involve construction of a new retaining wall along the south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way. This new retaining wall would be situated adjacent to an existing retaining wall, and would not be visible after construction. Project implementation would not obstruct views or adversely impact a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.1-1 Aesthetics

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Less Than Significant Impact. There are no officially-designated State scenic highways within proximity to the project site.1 The nearest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a stretch of State Route 91, located approximately 22 miles to the north. The nearest Eligible State Scenic Highway (not officially designated) is California State Route 1 (South Coast Highway), located approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the project site. However, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Scenic Highways Element designates South Coast Highway as a scenic highway. Although South Coast Highway is located in proximity to a designated City scenic highway, views towards the project site from travelers along South Coast Highway are not available due to distance, topography, surrounding residential buildings, and intervening trees and vegetation. Therefore the proposed project would not affect scenic resources within a scenic highway. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Short-Term Impacts

Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily impact the character/quality of the project site. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment, and truck traffic would temporarily impact views from surrounding uses. While temporary impacts may occur, only a small portion of the project site would be affected at a given time. It is anticipated the project would include a “rolling” work zone, where the contractor would mobilize in front of two to three houses at a time, and construct the retaining wall followed by curb and gutter repair. In addition, Mitigation Measure AES-1 would be implemented, which would require opaque temporary fencing to shield the construction area from adjacent viewers (e.g., passing vehicles and residents outside of the rolling work zone) to the greatest extent feasible.

The construction process would be short-term in nature and impacts would cease upon project completion. Upon completion, the character/quality of the project area would be restored to pre-project conditions. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant upon implementation of recommended mitigation.

Long-Term Impacts

Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the visual character of the project area during long-term operations, as Alta Vista Way would be restored to pre-project conditions after the completion of construction. The project would involve construction of a new retaining wall along the south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way. This new retaining wall would be situated adjacent to an existing retaining wall, and would not be visible after construction. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

AES-1 Construction equipment staging areas shall utilize appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) to shield views of construction equipment and material. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Laguna Beach Director of Public Works shall verify that such screening is included as a construction specification.

1 California Department of Transportation website, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed March 10, 2014.

October 2014 4.1-2 Aesthetics

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

No Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent uses and diminish the view of the clear night sky. Currently, light and glare in the project vicinity is produced by vehicle headlights and lighting from the adjacent residential uses.

Mechanical equipment utilized during the short-term construction process would not be capable of producing substantial glare. In addition, it is not anticipated that nighttime construction would occur. Thus, impacts related to short-term light and glare are not anticipated.

The proposed project would not create a new source of light or glare during long-term operations. The project proposes a new retaining wall that would not be visible after construction, and would not require nighttime lighting. Therefore, no new sources of light or glare would result from the project that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.1-3 Aesthetics

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.1-4 Aesthetics

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and Less Than farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, Potentially Significant Less Than including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead No Significant Impact With Significant agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s Incorporated inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ü Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ü Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code ü section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to ü non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ü Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The proposed project site is developed with urbanized uses. No farmland exists within the site vicinity. In addition, based on the Orange County Important Farmland 2010 Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation, the proposed project site does not occur upon any area designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 According to the map, the project is located within Urban and Built-Up Land. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. As a roadway facility, Alta Vista Way does not have a land use or zoning designation under the City of Laguna Beach General Plan (General Plan) and City of Laguna Beach Development Code (Development Code). However, areas surrounding the project site along Alta Vista Way are designated “Residential Low Density” (R1) by

1 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland 2010 Map, published August 2011.

October 2014 4.2-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

the City of Laguna Beach Zoning Map and “Village Low Density” (3 to 7 dwelling units per acre) by the General Plan. No agricultural uses exist within the site vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(b), above. No zoning for forest land or timberland exists within the project area, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(c), above.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

e) 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?

No Impact. As stated above in Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(c), the project site is completely developed and is void of agricultural or forest resources. Thus, there is no potential for the conversion of these resources and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.2-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.3 AIR QUALITY

Less Than Where available, the significance criteria established by the Potentially Significant Less Than applicable air quality management or air pollution control district No Significant Impact With Significant may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Impact Impact Mitigation Impact project: Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ü quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ü an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ü standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ü concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ü people?

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, in order to determine consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) two main criteria must be addressed.

Criterion 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.

a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations?

Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(d), below, localized concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because ROGs are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROG plays in ozone formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established.

b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?

As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.

October 2014 4.3-1 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during project construction. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.

a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?

A project is consistent with the AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. In the case of the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP), three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City of Laguna Beach General Plan (General Plan), SCAG’s Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), and SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The project involves the construction of a new retaining wall which is not a trip generating land use. Alta Vista Way is a two-lane local street providing an access to the upper hillside residents. The proposed project would install a retaining wall to support roadway. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with the General Plan, as the project does not involve any uses that would increase population beyond that considered in the General Plan and, therefore, would not affect City-wide plans for population growth at the project site. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the RCPG. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2012 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections.

b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?

The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Response 4.3(b). As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.

c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP?

The proposed project would serve to implement various City of Laguna Beach and SCAG policies. The proposed project does not involve land use planning strategies. The project site is located along Alta Vista Way in the vicinity of residential uses. The City has determined that the existing retaining wall along south/southwesterly down slope edge of Alta Vista Way has reached the end of its useful life and should be

October 2014 4.3-2 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

replaced. The project proposes to construct a retaining wall to support roadway within project limit. Therefore, there would be no conflict with AQMP by implementing the proposed project.

In conclusion, the determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. As discussed above, the proposed project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP and is, therefore, considered consistent with the SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation.

Short-Term (Construction) Emissions

Construction Emissions

Construction activities would involve demolition, earthwork, grading, retaining wall construction, and paving. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in March 2015 and be completed by December 2015. Construction activities would require the import of approximately 160 cubic yards of soil and export of approximately 1,580 cubic yards of soil.

Table 4.3-1, Construction Air Emissions, depicts the construction emissions associated with the project. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. ROG emissions would be the greatest during the paving phase of construction. The largest amount of CO and NOX emissions would occur during the construction phase. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur from fugitive dust (due to earthwork and excavation) and from construction equipment exhaust. The majority of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be generated by fugitive dust from earthwork activities. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site.

Table 4.3-1 Construction Air Emissions

Construction Emissions Pollutant (pounds/day)1

Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Unmitigated Emissions 6.05 71.92 35.77 0.08 3.68 3.06 Mitigated Emissions 6.05 71.92 35.77 0.08 3.57 3.03 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD.

October 2014 4.3-3 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

As depicted in Table 4.3-1, construction-related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. During construction activities, the project would also be required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations, such as Rule 403 (Dust Control). Additionally, compliance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure compliance with SCAQMD standard regulations, resulting in a less than significant construction impact.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board in 1986.

Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.

Long-Term (Operational) Emissions

Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and from stationary source emissions generated directly from natural gas. The proposed project would construct a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within project limit to support roadway. The project would not generate any new traffic trips, as the project proposes improvements to the existing roadway and would not result in any permanent or long-term air emissions. Additionally, the proposed roadway improvement would not generate any stationary source emissions. Therefore, the project would not result in any new operational emissions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Demolition or Building Permit, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:

• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust;

• Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied;

• All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;

October 2014 4.3-4 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

• Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area;

• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;

• Visible dust beyond the project limits which emanates from the project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible;

• All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and

• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation.

Cumulative Construction Impacts

With respect to the proposed project’s construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2012 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with adopted 2012 AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects.

Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would reduce the project’s construction-related impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts

As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts, as the proposed retaining wall would not result in long-term air quality impacts and emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans are constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, no impacts to cumulative operational impacts associated with project operations would result.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

October 2014 4.3-5 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

Sensitive receptors closest to the project site include residents located on both sides of Alta Vista Way. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operations impacts (area sources only).

Localized Significance Thresholds (LST)

Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one, two, and five acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project over five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project is located within Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 20, Central Orange County Coastal.

The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the amount of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day. The project would disturb approximately 0.2 acre; therefore, the LST thresholds for the smallest acreage (one acre) were utilized for the construction LST analysis. It is noted that an operational LST analysis was not prepared, as the project would not result in operational emissions. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential uses located adjacent to the project site. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive use is approximately 25 meters away, the LST values for 25 meters were utilized.

Table 4.3-2, Localized Significance of Emissions, shows the construction-related emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 20, Central Orange County Coastal. As shown in Table 4.3-2, construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 20. Therefore, localized significance impacts from construction would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions

Pollutant (pounds/day) Source NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction (2015) Total Emissions 71.68 33.21 3.18 2.93 Localized Significance Threshold 92 639 4 3 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Note: 1. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction, the distance to sensitive receptors, and the source receptor area (SRA 20).

October 2014 4.3-6 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.).

The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of CO hotspots when a project increases the volume-to-capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service LOS D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections.

The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. On-road mobile source CO emissions have declined 24 percent between 1989 and 1998, despite a 23 percent rise in motor vehicle miles traveled over the same 10 years. California trends have been consistent with national trends; CO emissions declined 20 percent in California from 1985 through 1997 while vehicle miles traveled increased 18 percent in the 1990s. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst-case intersections in the Basin, and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Plan is utilized in a comparison to the proposed project, since it represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within the Basin.

Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 parts per million [ppm]), which is well below the 35-ppm 1-hr CO Federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections within the City of Laguna Beach near the project site due to the low volume of traffic. Additionally, the proposed project would not generate any new traffic trips along Alta Vista Way and ADT would be the same with and without project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.3-7 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.3-8 Air Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ü regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ü Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ü through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ü established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ü ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or ü other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project site is developed with residential uses, and exists within an urbanized area. The project would not result in direct impacts to any sensitive species or wildlife habitat. The proposed retaining wall would occur entirely within City roadway right-of-way, within and adjacent to disturbed areas occupied by the existing curb and gutter. While a minor amount of ornamental landscaping may be affected as part of removal and replacement of the curb and gutter, impacts to sensitive biological resources are not anticipated given the disturbed nature of the project site.

However, since the proposed project may result in the removal of numerous mature trees on the south/southwestern side of Alta Vista Way, the project could result in potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting birds if construction activities occur during the nesting season. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been provided to reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

October 2014 4.4-1 Biological Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 In order to protect migratory birds, any potentially affected mature trees on-site shall be removed or relocated between September 1 and January 31. If tree removal or relocation occurs between February 1 and August 31, the City of Laguna Beach shall have a pre-construction survey conducted by a qualified biologist to identify any active nesting locations. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, construction shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any), approved by the biological monitor, shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests shall occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and any other appropriate agency.

Upon implementation of recommended mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive biological resources would be less than significant. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. While no known riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities are present on-site, there is a potential for impacts to migratory birds within existing trees that may be affected by the project; refer to Response 4.4(a). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to ensure that any potential impacts to species in riparian habitat are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. There are no wetlands present on the project site, since the entire project site is developed with roadway uses. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less Than Significant Impact. No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries are known to exist in the project area. The project is located within an urbanized area, with several local roadways (Alta Vista Way and Lomita Way) and major transportation corridor (South Coast Highway) approximately 0.2 mile to the southwest. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.4-2 Biological Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less Than Significant Impact. Vegetation removal associated with the project is anticipated to be limited primarily to minor vegetation thinning along the south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way within the project boundary where the proposed retaining wall would be installed. Moreover, the proposed project would be consistent with the City Trees and Vegetation Ordinance (Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 12) in relation to the addition or removal of trees and shrubs. Consequently, the proposed project site would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. As such, less than significant impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southern California Map, the proposed project is located within the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).1 However, as discussed above within Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, and would not result in conflicts with provisions of the HCP/NCCP. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southern California, October 2008.

October 2014 4.4-3 Biological Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.4-4 Biological Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ü historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ü §15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource ü or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ü formal cemeteries?

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of the Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Replacement Project, dated May 2014 (refer to Appendix B, Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment) included a field survey and records search of the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC) database. Based on the results of the field survey and records search, there are no known built environment historical cultural resources within the project site. The records search identified that a total of 15 cultural resources have been documented previously within a one-mile radius of the project area. Of these 15 resources, six are prehistoric archaeological resources and nine are historic built environment resources. These resources were documented to be approximately from 0.25-mile to one-mile from the project site and would not be affected by construction. Also within a mile of the project area are six National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible Historic Districts. One of the Historic Districts, Alta Vista Way and Vicinity, has one contributing property, 520 Alta Vista Way, located on the north side of Alta Vista Way adjacent to the project area. However, this property would not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. As noted above, the Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of the Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Replacement Project included a search for archaeological records through the SCCIC. The record search included the project boundaries and a one-mile radius around the project boundaries. Sources consulted include the National Register of Historical Places, California Register of Historic Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.

Results of these cultural resources studies indicate that there are no known archaeological resources within the project area. As stated under Response 4.5(a), a total of 15 cultural resources have been documented previously within a one-mile radius of the project area. Of these 15 resources, six are prehistoric archeological resources and nine are historic built environment resources. However, none of these resources within a one-mile radius would have the potential to be affected by implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, no archaeological resources were observed during the field survey.

October 2014 4.5-1 Cultural Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Although the potential for encountering archaeological resources is considered low, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented in the event an unanticipated find occurs during ground disturbance. Upon implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 In the event archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the construction contractor shall immediately notify the City of Laguna Beach Director of Public Works. The City of Laguna Beach shall retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the find. Work in the vicinity of the find (a minimum of 50-foot radius) shall be halted until it can be evaluated by the archaeologist. The archaeologist shall prepare and complete a standard mitigation program for the salvage and curation of identified resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. As paleontological records search was performed as part of the Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of the Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Replacement Project. The results of the paleontological records search indicates that there are no known paleontological resources from the San Onofre Breccia or marine terrace deposits within the project area or immediate vicinity. Also, the results indicated that no fossils are known from project sediments within the project area or the immediate vicinity. However, invertebrate and vertebrate fossils have been recovered in other parts of Orange County from Quaternary marine terrace deposits and San Onofre Breccia. Recovered fossil material from the terrace deposits include abundant remains of freshwater snail and clam, freshwater and marine fish, shark, turtle, seal, whale, snake, rodent, bison, horse, deer, tapir, and mammoth. Marine invertebrates and mammals have been recovered from the San Onofre Breccia in southern California. However, vertebrate fossils in the San Onofre Formation are rare and highly fragmented.

The potential for the project area to contain significant fossils or potentially eligible subsurface cultural deposits is unlikely due to the method of construction for secant pile walls. While drilling for the piles may rotate out fossil bones or cultural material the resources will lack context, depth/elevation, formation identification and other elements that are critical to scientific significance. However, to minimize potential impacts in the event of an unanticipated find, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been incorporated. Measure CUL-2 would require a qualified paleontologist to evaluate any unanticipated finds during the excavation phase of the proposed project. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-2 In the event paleontological resources are discovered during construction, the construction contractor shall immediately notify the City of Laguna Beach Director of Public Works. The City of Laguna Beach shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the find. Work in the vicinity of the find (a minimum of 50-foot radius) shall be halted until it can be evaluated by the paleontologist. The paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard mitigation program for the salvage and curation of identified resources. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found on the project site. Due to the level of past disturbance on-site, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for human remains.

October 2014 4.5-2 Cultural Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.5-3 Cultural Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.5-4 Cultural Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) 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 ü on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ü 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides? ü b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ü c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ü potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks ü to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ü where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1) 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.

Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

According to the State of California Department of Conservation, Regulatory Maps1, and City of Laguna Beach General Plan Safety Element, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project site, and the probability of damage because of surface ground rupture is low due to the lack of known active faults crossing the project area.

Although there are no active or potentially active faults in Laguna Beach, the City is traversed by two major inactive fault systems, the Laguna Canyon Fault and the Temple Hills Fault. It is unlikely that these faults will experience

1 State of California Department of Conservation, Regulatory Maps, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/ regulatorymaps.htm.

October 2014 4.6-1 Geology and Soils

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

activity in the near-future since there is no record of faulting in historical times or in the geologic record of the last 11,000 years. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

2) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires. Although no known active faults exists within the project area and there is a very low probability of exposure to primary seismic hazards, secondary hazards pose a threat to the community as a result of the project’s proximity to active regional faults.

According to the Safety Element of the City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Southern California is located in a seismically active area. There have been many earthquakes throughout recorded history; some have been large. The 1933 Long Beach quake was the most powerful and closest shock to hit Laguna Beach in living memory, and the 1994 Northridge quake was the most recent powerful shock. Both of these were felt widely across the Los Angeles basin and caused considerable damage. In October, 1969, a quake occurred which was felt predominantly in Laguna Beach and South Laguna. By way of comparison, the three quakes listed above had the following Richter magnitudes: 1933 Long Beach, 6.3; 1994 Northridge, 6.8; 1969 Laguna Beach, 4.3. The active faults of Southern California will continue to be subjected to stresses which produce movements that in turn cause earthquakes of varying magnitude and intensity. Earthquakes along active faults will, more than likely, be of the same magnitude as those experienced in the past, and large earthquakes will most likely occur where they have previously occurred.

The City of Laguna Beach lies on the western flank of the San Joaquin Hills. The three dominant active fault systems of this geomorphic area in which these hills occur are the Newport-Inglewood (3 miles west), Whittier-Elsinore (20.5 miles northeast), and the San Jacinto (42.5 miles northeast). These faults all trend in a northwesterly direction and divide the province into subparallel blocks each of which contains a complex system of older faults. There are also distant faults that could affect Laguna Beach by generating a powerful shock, such as the San Andreas and the San Jacinto, two great faults which have shown activity in historic times. The most destructive earthquake experienced in the Laguna Beach area occurred in 1812 and was probably centered near San Juan Capistrano or on an undetermined offshore fault, perhaps on or related to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts related to seismic ground shaking since it proposes to construct a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way to resist the lateral pressure of soil and ensure that susceptibility to landslides is minimized. The proposed retaining wall would be subject to City review and approval prior to construction to ensure adherence to applicable building codes and regulations, including the California Building Code (CBC). Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important element in the susceptibility to liquefaction. Groundwater

October 2014 4.6-2 Geology and Soils

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

shallower than 30 feet results in high to very high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper water results in low and very low susceptibility.

Based on the Regulatory Maps2 prepared by the State of California Department of Conservation, the project site is not subject to the potential for liquefaction. In addition, as stated above, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts related to seismic ground shaking and liquefaction since it proposes construction of a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way to support the roadway. Thus, impacts are less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

4) Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are a serious geologic hazard, with some moving slowly and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement. Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking.

Based on the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Safety Element, the project site is subject to the potential for ground displacement and landslide. The existing retaining wall along Alta Vista Way supports the roadway and protects downhill uses from geological hazards (including landslides). The existing wooden plank and post wall is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. An investigation of the wall conditions conducted by the City revealed that portions of the wall show signs of rot and termite infestation. Therefore, it has been determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced.

The proposed project would implement a new retaining wall adjacent to the existing retaining wall to ensure that Alta Vista Way and the existing hillside are adequately retained and stabilized. Therefore, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts in this regard. In addition, the project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and the proposed project would not affect subsurface geology. The construction of the proposed retaining wall would not have the ability to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground failure or landslides. Thus, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, project implementation would result in new retaining wall installed along the Alta Vista Way to support the roadway. Construction of the proposed project may temporarily increase the potential for soil loss due to wind and water erosion. However, the proposed project would require only a minor amount of ground disturbance and exposed soils at one time. The construction impact area would be very narrow (given the nature of the secant wall improvements), and it is anticipated that construction would occur as a “rolling” work zone, where the contractor would only mobilize in front of two to three houses at a time (rather than the entire project alignment at once).

In addition, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with water quality control measures included in Chapter 16.01, Water Quality Control, of the City’s Municipal Code. The Water Quality Control chapter includes requirements for the implementation Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for water quality impacts during construction. Upon adherence to these existing requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

2 State of California Department of Conservation, Regulatory Maps, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/ regulatorymaps.htm.

October 2014 4.6-3 Geology and Soils

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Long-term operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur, since the project site would be returned to pre-project conditions after construction of the retaining wall. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to potential liquefaction hazards and landslides are discussed in Responses 4.6(a)(3) and 4.6(a)(4), respectively. As noted above, the existing retaining wall along Alta Vista Way supports the roadway and protects downhill uses from geological hazards and unstable soils. The existing wooden plank and post wall is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. Therefore, it has been determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced.

In addition, the proposed retaining wall would be subject to City review and approval prior to construction to ensure adherence to applicable building codes and regulations, including the CBC. Thus, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts in this regard, and impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Review and Recommendations for Alta Vista Way Retaining Walls prepared by Geofirm, dated January 9, 2013, the subject site is underlain by localized deposits of undocumented fill, residual soil, marine terrace deposit and San Onofre formation bedrock. The bedrock is not anticipated to subject to expansion. As stated above, project implementation would result in new retaining wall installed along Alta Vista Way to support roadway, resulting in beneficial impacts. Moreover, the project would conform to existing building requirements of the CBC. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill and pier/caisson drilling. Thus, impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.6-4 Geology and Soils

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.7 GREENHOUSE GASES

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the ü environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ü greenhouse gases?

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Global Climate Change

California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 400 million tons of carbon 1 dioxide (CO2) per year. Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) over the next century. Methane is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well- mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission.

The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range.

Regulations and Significance Criteria

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 2 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ºC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

Executive Order S-3-05 was issued in June 2005, which established the following GHG emission reduction targets:

• 2010: Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

1 California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2011, August, 2013. 2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.

October 2014 4.7-1 Greenhouse Gases

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. CARB has approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq.

Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change. In actuality, GHG emissions from the proposed project would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change.

In June 2008, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory, which provides informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in CEQA documents.3 This is assessed by determining whether a proposed project is consistent with or obstructs the 39 Recommended Actions identified by CARB in its Climate Change Scoping Plan which includes nine Early Action Measures (qualitative approach). The Attorney General’s Mitigation Measures identify areas were GHG emissions reductions can be achieved in order to achieve the goals of AB 32. As set forth in the OPR Technical Advisory and in the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, this analysis examines whether the project's GHG emissions are significant based on a qualitative and performance based standard (Proposed CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(1) and (2)).

SCAQMD Thresholds

The SCAQMD has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.4

With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from Senate Bill (SB) 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all non-industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. Under the Tier 4 second option the project would be excluded if it had early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB’s Scoping Plan measures. Under the Tier 4 third option, the project would be excluded if it 5 was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per service population (SP) per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.

GHG efficiency metrics are utilized as thresholds to assess the GHG efficiency of a project on a per capita basis or on a “service population” basis (the sum of the number of jobs and the number of residents provided by a project) such that the project would allow for consistency with the goals of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020

3 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, 2008. 4 The most recent SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group meeting was held on September 2010. 5 The project-level efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per SP per year is relative to the 2020 target date. The SCAQMD has also proposed efficiency-based thresholds relative to the 2035 target date to be consistent with the GHG reduction target date of SB 375. GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. Applying this 40 percent reduction to the 2020 targets results in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MTCO2eq per SP per year and an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2eq/year.

October 2014 4.7-2 Greenhouse Gases

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

and 2035). GHG efficiency thresholds can be determined by dividing the GHG emissions inventory goal of the State, by the estimated 2035 population and employment. This method allows highly efficient projects with higher mass emissions to meet the overall reduction goals of AB 32, and is appropriate, because the threshold can be applied evenly to all project types (residential or commercial/retail only and mixed use).

For the proposed project, the 3,000 MTCO2eq per year non-industrial screening threshold is used as the significance threshold, in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines.

Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases

Project-related GHG emissions would include emissions from construction and operation activities. Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from the operation of construction equipment. Transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site would also result in GHG emissions. Construction activities would be short-term in duration and would cease upon project completion. The proposed project involves construction of a new retaining wall to support Alta Vista Way within the project limit and does not propose a trip-generated land use. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not result in any sources of operational GHG emissions, as there would be no increase in vehicle trips and no new land uses are proposed. Consequently, project-related GHG emissions would only be from construction activities.

Construction Emissions

Project-related GHG emissions would result from the proposed construction activities over the construction period. As shown in Table 4.7-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, construction of the proposed project would result in a total of 337.41 MTCO2eq (11.25 MTCO2eq amortized over 30 years) which is well below the 3,000 MTCO2eq/year screening threshold. The California Emissions estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to calculate off-road construction emissions. The CalEEMod outputs are contained within the Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data.

Table 4.7-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CO2 CH4 N2O Total Metric Source Metric Metric Metric Tons Metric Metric Tons Tons of 1 1 Tons/yr Tons/yr of CO2eq Tons/yr of CO2eq CO2eq Construction Emissions Total emissions (one time) 335.67 0.08 1.74 0.00 0.00 337.41 Total emissions (amortized over 30 years) 11.19 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 11.25 Notes: 1. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html, accessed April 2014. 2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for detailed model input/output data.

As GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project would be minimal and less than the non-industrial GHG emissions threshold adopted by the SCAQMD, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.7-3 Greenhouse Gases

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

No Impact. The Laguna Beach City Climate Protection Action Plan (CPAP) provides a blueprint to implement the key provisions of the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, which City Council adopted on February 6, 2007. The broad goal is to reduce manmade GHG emissions. The proposed project involves construction of a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within the project limit to support the roadway. The proposed project would not conflict with the City of Laguna Beach CPAP, as the project does not change the City’s land use designations and would not increase population beyond that considered in the General Plan. Furthermore, the project does not involve expanding of the existing roadway and would not generate vehicle trips or increase roadway capacity. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not affect any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would be anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.7-4 Greenhouse Gases

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ü materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ü conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter ü mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ü Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in ü a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ü working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ü plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands ü are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. The short-term construction process for the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of utilizing gasoline and diesel fuels for construction equipment, no other hazardous materials would be transported to or from the project site, or used in the construction process. Fuels and solvents for construction would be stored and utilized pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, short-term construction impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Long-term operations associated with the project would not require the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous materials. Project implementation would result in new retaining wall installed along Alta Vista Way to support the roadway. Thus, no impacts would occur during long-term operations.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.8-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Short-Term Impacts

During the short-term period of project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts

Long-term operations associated with the project would not have the potential to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment, since the project would result in the construction of a retaining wall along south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way. Thus, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the site is Laguna Beach High School, located at 625 Park Avenue (approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the project site). Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. The project site is not listed in a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.1 No impact would result in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

1 Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mandated_reports.asp, accessed on March 17, 2014.

October 2014 4.8-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 12 miles to the northwest. Therefore, the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. As such, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: 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?

No Impact. No private airstrips exist in the project vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Based on the City’s General Plan Safety Element, in Laguna Beach there are many isolated neighborhoods which are accessed by only one entry point, which create potentially undesirable, inadequate or hazardous access deficiencies in the event of a disaster. Some of the neighborhoods which have impaired access due to road geometry/configuration problems are: Allview Terrace, Bluebird Canyon, Canyon Acres, Diamond/Crestview, Upper Three Arch, Bay and Upper Victoria. According to the Impaired Road Access Map within the Safety Element of the General Plan, the proposed project is located within developed areas with impaired access due to road geometry/configuration.

In addition, the City of Laguna Beach Emergency Management Plan (EMP) provides guidance for the City and its citizens in response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. This plan does not apply to normal day-to-day emergencies and the well- established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Rather, the operational concepts reflected in this Plan focus on potential large-scale disasters, which can generate unique situations requiring unusual responses. Such disasters pose major threats to life and property and can impact the well-being of large numbers of people. Part One, Basic Plan, of the EMP, describes the basic organization and operational concepts associated with the management of major emergencies or disaster events.

Alta Vista Way is a two-lane roadway serving single-family residential uses in the project area. During the short-term period of project construction, temporary closure of one travel lane would be required during construction hours for construction activities and related vehicles. Thus, vehicle travel along Alta Vista Way along a portion of the project site would be reduced to one travel lane for part of the day. However, at the end of construction activities for the day, all travel lanes would be reopened and available for use.

Although travel capacity along Alta Vista Way would be reduced during construction, it is anticipated that construction would occur as a “rolling” work zone, where the contractor would only mobilize in front of two to three houses at a time (rather than the entire project alignment at once). Thus, it is expected that the temporary lane closure would affect only approximately 120 feet along Alta Vista Way at any given time. Alta Vista Way would remain open to traffic in both directions at all times during the construction process. In addition, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would be implemented, which would require the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) during the construction process. The TMP would require such measures as construction signage, in addition to a construction flagperson to assist in maintaining efficient vehicle travel in both directions, particularly during peak travel hours.

October 2014 4.8-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

During the long-term operational period, the proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Alta Vista Way would be returned to pre-project conditions upon completion of the construction process, and vehicle travel would not be altered.

Thus, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TR-1.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Based on the City’s General Plan, several factors affect the hazard potential one can expect from a wildland fire in any given area. These factors include topography, vegetation, climate, development patterns, access and firefighting capabilities to the area. According to the City of Laguna Beach Environmental Constraints map, the proposed project is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the proposed project would result in construction of retaining wall along Alta Vista Way to support the roadway and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Moreover, the proposed project would not include any habitable structures. Therefore, during long-term operations, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

During short-term construction activities, there is a potential for an increased exposure to wildfire hazards due to the operation of construction equipment and tools. However, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. This measure would require various precautionary actions by the construction contractor on Red Flag days or when a fire occurs in the site vicinity. Thus, short-term construction impacts in regards to wildfire would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a Demolition or Building Permit, the City of Laguna Beach City Engineer shall verify that the following measures are incorporated into construction contracts, to be implemented during periods when the National Weather Service has issued a Red Flag warning for the project area:

• No welding or other activity capable of ignition shall occur near vegetation within and surrounding the site;

• A fire extinguisher shall be maintained on-site and readily accessible for use in the event of a fire; and

• The construction contractor shall have a designated employee responsible for fire safety on- site during all construction activity.

Additionally, if a wildfire is reported in the project area, all construction activities shall be prohibited and all road lanes in both directions of travel shall be open for evacuation and emergency personnel.

October 2014 4.8-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ü requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ü existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream ü or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ü of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems ü or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ü g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ü Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ü i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of ü the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ü

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Short-Term Construction Impacts

The proposed project may result in water quality impacts during the short-term construction process. The grading/excavation required for project implementation would result in exposed soils that may be subject to wind and water erosion. Since the project impact area would be below one acre, the proposed project would not be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with water quality control measures included in Chapter 16.01, Water Quality Control, of the City’s Municipal Code. The Water Quality Control chapter includes requirements for the implementation Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for water quality

October 2014 4.9-1 Hydrology and Water Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

impacts during construction. Upon adherence to these existing requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts

Long-term operational impacts would not occur, since the project site would be returned to pre-project conditions after construction of the retaining wall. The proposed retaining wall would not affect hydrology or water quality in the project area upon completion of construction. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not directly result in any groundwater extraction or the depletion of groundwater supplies. Construction of retaining wall under the proposed curb and gutter along Alta Vista Way within the project limit would not result in an increase in impervious area, since the site would be returned to pre-project conditions upon the completion of construction. Additionally, the project would implement a retaining wall, which would not require the use or consumption of water during long-term operations. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not change existing storm water drainage conditions within the project limits. Upon completion of construction of the retaining wall, the project area would be restored to pre-project conditions and there would be no changes to drainage patterns, flow rates, runoff volumes, and water quality. The existing City storm water drainage inlet within Alta Vista Way right-of-way would not be impacted by the proposed project. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.9(c), above.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(c), above.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.9-2 Hydrology and Water Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in water quality impacts other than the potential impacts identified above in Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(c). Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is situated within Zone X, which is outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.1 In addition, no housing would be constructed as part of the proposed project. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. As stated above in Response 4.9(g), the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.2 No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.3 Also, the project site is not located within proximity to a waterway or dam. Moreover, the proposed project would not construct habitable structures and would not change existing storm water drainage conditions within the project limits. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity.

Based on the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Safety Element, seismically induced seiches are considered a potential hazard. However, no enclosed bodies of water exist in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0419J, Panel 419 of 539, revised December 3, 2009. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

October 2014 4.9-3 Hydrology and Water Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

According to the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Safety Element, the project area is not prone to an inundation by tsunami. Tsunami hazard is considered to be low for the elevations above the principal sea cliffs in Laguna Beach. Thus, there would be no impacts in this regard.

The project area is located within a developed residential area. While there is a potential for mudflow within the hillside portions of the City, the project would result in a beneficial impact in this regard. The existing retaining wall along Alta Vista Way supports the roadway and protects downhill uses from geological hazards (including mudflow). The existing wooden plank and post wall is beginning to show signs of decay and movement, and it has been determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. Thus, the project would reduce the potential for mudflow to occur at and surrounding the project site, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.9-4 Hydrology and Water Quality

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

a. Physically divide an established community? ü b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ü or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ü community conservation plan?

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in impacts related to the division of an established community. The proposed project would install a secant pile retaining wall within the street and beneath/adjacent to the existing curb and gutter. Alta Vista Way is an existing roadway that currently acts as a linear feature dividing the residential community, and the site would be restored to pre-project conditions upon completion of construction. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact. As a roadway facility, Alta Vista Way does not have a land use or zoning designation under the City’s General Plan or Development Code. Areas surrounding the project site along Alta Vista Way are designated “Residential Low Density” (R1) by the City of Laguna Beach Zoning Map and “Village Low Density” (3 to 7 dwelling units per acre) by the General Plan. Within the General Plan Transportation, Circulation, and Growth Management Element, Alta Vista Way has a roadway designation of “Collector (Restricted)”.

The downhill, south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way in the City of Laguna Beach is supported by a wood plank and post retaining wall built sometime around 1962. The existing retaining wall is beginning to show signs of decay and movement. The City has determined that the existing wall has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. The proposed project would install a secant pile retaining wall within the project limits. The project would not alter any land use patters within the project area or affect the roadway capacity/classification along Alta Vista Way. In addition, based on the General Plan Safety Element, one method to minimize landslide risks is through the construction of retaining walls to reduce potential hazards to an acceptable level. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.10-1 Land Use and Planning

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. As stated in Response 4.4(f), the proposed project is located within the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).1 However, as discussed within Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, and would not result in conflicts with provisions of the HCP/NCCP. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southern California, October 2008.

October 2014 4.10-2 Land Use and Planning

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ü state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ü specific plan or other land use plan?

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The proposed project would involve construction of retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within the project limits. No mineral recovery activities currently occur in the project area, and the project site is not underlain by any known mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the state. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a), above.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.11-1 Mineral Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.11-2 Mineral Resources

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.12 NOISE

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ü noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ü c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ü d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ü project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ü people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area ü to excessive noise levels?

Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.

Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.

There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.

October 2014 4.12-1 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

General Plan

The Noise Element of a General Plan is a comprehensive program for including noise management in the planning process. It is a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining land uses that are compatible with environmental noise levels. The Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs to ensure that Laguna Beach residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The original Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Laguna Beach identified aircraft noise from Marine Corps Air Station El Toro as the primary noise source impacting the City. The base is now closed and motor vehicle traffic is the primary noise source in the City. Table 4.12-1, Noise/Land Use Compatibility presents the City’s land use compatibility criteria.

Table 4.12-1 Noise/Land Use Compatibility

Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 – 60 55 - 70 70-75 75-85 Residential - Multiple Family 50 – 65 60 - 70 70 – 75 70 - 85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 – 65 60 - 70 70 – 80 80 - 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 - 70 70 – 80 80 - 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 65 - 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 70 - 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 67.5 – 75 NA 72.5 - 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 – 75 NA 70 – 80 80 - 85 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 – 70 67.5 - 77.5 75 – 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 70 - 80 75 – 85 NA NA: Not Applicable Notes: Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City of Laguna Beach, General Plan Noise Element, 2005.

October 2014 4.12-2 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Municipal Code

The City of Laguna Beach Noise Ordinance is contained within City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code (Municipal Code), Title 7, Health and Sanitation; Chapter 7.25, Noise.1 Based on Municipal Code, excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health, welfare, safety and the quality of life. Community members have a right to, and should be ensured of, an environment free from excessive noise. Therefore, it is the policy of Laguna Beach to prevent excessive noise that may jeopardize the health, welfare or safety of the citizens or degrade their quality of life. Additionally, Section 7.25.080, in the Noise Chapter, identifies the days and hours that construction works can take place in the City. The Table 4.12-2, Construction Noise Hours, illustrates the City’s construction noise hours.

Table 4.12-2 Construction Noise Hours

Day Time

Weekdays 7:30 am to 6:00 pm Weekends N/A Holidays N/A Source: City of Laguna Beach, Municipal Code, Chapter 7.25 Noise, Section 7.25.080 Construction activity noise regulations.

Depicted in Table 4.12-2, the project would be subject to the limitations imposed by the City regarding construction noise. The following outlines the City’s construction activity noise regulations:

Section 7.25.080. Construction activity noise regulations

A. Weekdays: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a peace or code enforcement officer, on any weekday except between the hours of seven-thirty a.m. and six p.m.

B. Weekends and Holidays: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, grading, demolition or other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a peace or code enforcement officer, on any weekend day or any federal holiday.

C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section.

D. Exceptions:

1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency construction work performed by a private party when authorized by the director of community development, building official or their designee.

2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided,

1 City of Laguna Beach, Municipal Code, Title 7 – Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7 - Noise, http://www.qcode.us/ codes /lagunabeach/.

October 2014 4.12-3 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

however, this exception shall not apply to the city of Laguna Beach, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:

a) The city manager or a department director determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public services;

b) The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours; or

c) The city council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section.

3. Any construction that complies with the noise limits specified in Section 7.25.040 of this chapter.

4. Construction activities for certain public benefit nonprofit art organizations, specifically the Sawdust Festival, Art-A-Fair and the Laguna Art Museum, shall be permitted between the hours of seven- thirty a.m. and ten p.m. Monday through Friday, seven-thirty a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. (Ord. 1448 § 1 (part), 2005).

Section 7.25.040 of the Noise Chapter shall apply to all properties within a designated noise zone unless otherwise specifically indicated. The Table 4.12-3, Allowable Exterior Noise Level, indicates exterior noise standards. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.

Table 4.12-3 Allowable Exterior Noise Level

Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq(1) Noise Zone Type of Land Use 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. I Residential 60 dBA 50 dBA II Commercial 65 dBA 65 dBA III Residential portion 65 dBA 55 dBA Downtown specific plan area - CBD1, IV CBD2, CBD visitor commercial, CBD 70 dBA 70 dBA central bluffs & civic arts district V Other uses 70 dBA 60 dBA Notes: 1. Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property.

EXISTING NOISE SOURCES

The project area is urbanized, consisting of residential uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment and pedestrians). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise. However, the majority of the existing noise in the project area is generated from vehicle sources which are mobile sources.

October 2014 4.12-4 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; what is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. However, all such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the needs of the majority of the general population.

As stated above, the City’s Municipal Code includes some regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise within the City. As outlined in the Municipal Code, maximum noise levels are based on land use.

Short-Term Noise Impacts

Construction activities generally are temporary and have a short duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately ten months. Construction activities would include demolition, construction of the new retaining wall, and paving. Ground-borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts typically occur during the initial demolition and earthwork phases. These phases of construction have the potential to create the highest levels of noise; however, it is generally the shortest of all construction phases. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.12-4, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).

Table 4.12-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment

Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 78 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Water Truck 40 80 Grader 40 85 General Industrial Equipment 50 85 Note: 1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05- 054), January 2006.

October 2014 4.12-5 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Sensitive uses surrounding the project site include residential uses along Alta Vista Way adjoining to the project site. These sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during project construction. The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Instead, the Municipal Code has established allowable hours of construction (7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and at no time on weekends and holidays), of which the proposed project would adhere. Thus, construction activities would be conducted during allowable daytime hours, per the City’s Municipal Code. Anticipated construction would be consistent with Municipal Code provisions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Refer to Response 4.12 (c) for a discussion of the proposed project’s long-term operational noise impacts.

Mitigation Measures:

N-1 Prior to issuance of a Demolition or Building Permit, the City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development shall verify that the project complies with the following:

• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices.

• Construction contracts specify that a sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the project construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Laguna Beach Community Development Department, prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.

• The project shall include a specification, to the satisfaction of the City of Laguna Beach Community Development Department, that the contractor has designated an employee as a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Laguna Beach Community Development Department. All signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.

• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.).

• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

• Construction equipment staging areas shall be located as far away from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The

October 2014 4.12-6 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 4.12-5, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.

Table 4.12-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment

Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Equipment velocity at 15 feet velocity at 25 feet velocity at 50 feet (inches/second) (inches/second) (inches/second) Large bulldozer 0.1915 0.089 0.0315 Loaded trucks 0.1635 0.076 0.0269 Small bulldozer 0.0065 0.003 0.0011 Jackhammer 0.0753 0.035 0.0124 Caisson drilling 0.1915 0.089 0.0315 Notes: 1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2. 2. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver

Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 4.12-5, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The nearest sensitive receptors (residential uses to the south/southwest) are located adjacent the project site (as close as 15 feet). As noted in Table 4.12-5, vibration at 15 feet would range from 0.0065 to 0.1915 PPV and vibration at 50 feet would range from 0.0011 to 0.0315 PPV. Secant pile walls would be constructed with conventional drilling methods. Construction steps would be: drilling and installation of the temporary casing; drilling of the primary columns; concreting of the primary columns; drilling of the overlapping secondary (reinforced) columns; installation of I-Beams; and concreting of the secondary columns. Primary equipment for construction phase is Drill Rigs, and pile driving equipment is not required. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors (residences to the south/southwest) would be expected to be below the 0.20 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.12-7 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

No Impact.

Off-Site Mobile Noise Impacts

The proposed project includes construction of a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within project limit to support roadway. The project would not provide additional lanes and does not generate additional trip, so the traffic would not increase by implementation of the proposed improvements. Future development generated by the proposed project would result in no additional traffic on adjacent roadways; thereby, there would be no vehicular noise increasing in the vicinity of existing land uses. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

Long-Term Stationary Noise Impacts

Upon project completion, noise in the project area would not increase. The project involves construction of a new retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within project limit to support roadway. The proposed project would not generate any stationary source noise impacts. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant. Refer to Responses 4.12(a) and 4.12(b), above.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan and there are no public or private airports or airstrips within two miles of the project site. The John Wayne Airport is located approximately 12 miles to the northwest of the project site and is the nearest airport. Thus, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: 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?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips located within the project area or in the vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.12-8 Noise

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ü businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ü elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ü construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact. The proposed retaining wall improvements would support Alta Vista Way within the project limits. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in direct population growth. Furthermore, the project area is urbanized and generally built-out. Thus, the project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. No housing would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. No people would be displaced by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.13-1 Population and Housing

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.13-2 Population and Housing

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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: 1) Fire protection? ü 2) Police protection? ü 3) Schools? ü 4) Parks? ü 5) Other public facilities? ü

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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:

1) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection within the City. The nearest station to the project site is Station #2, located at 285 Agate Street at Laguna Beach, approximately 0.6 mile to the northwest. As noted within Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would require temporary closure of one travel lane during construction. Thus, emergency response times may be affected over the short-term. Although travel capacity along Alta Vista Way would be reduced during construction, traffic in both directions would remain open at all times. In addition, at the end of construction activities for the day, all travel lanes would be reopened and available for use.

It is anticipated that construction would occur as a “rolling” work zone, where the contractor would only mobilize in front of two to three houses at a time (rather than the entire project alignment at once). Thus, it is expected that the temporary lane closure would affect only approximately 120 feet along Alta Vista Way at any given time. Moreover, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would be implemented, which would require the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) during the construction process. The TMP would require such measures as construction signage, in addition to a construction flagperson to assist in maintaining efficient vehicle travel in both directions, particularly during peak travel hours.

The proposed project would not result in a physical impacts related to the need for additional fire protection services or facilities during long-term operations. No habitable structures are proposed, and the project site would be returned to pre-project conditions after construction. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant after implementation or recommended mitigation.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TR-1.

October 2014 4.14-1 Public Services

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Laguna Beach Police Department is located at 505 Forest Avenue, approximately 1.8 miles to the northwest of the project site. Refer to Response 4.14(a), above, for an analysis of short-term and long-term impacts related to emergency response. Impacts would be less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TR-1.

3) Schools?

No Impact. The proposed project would not directly result in any student generation, as no homes are proposed. Moreover, as discussed in Response 4.13(a), the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area. Thus, no impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

4) Parks?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in increased use or demand for park facilities as the project would not result in an increase in population. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to existing park facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

5) Other public facilities?

No Impact. As shown above in Responses 4.14(a)(1) through 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public services or facilities. No other public facilities are anticipated to be affected by the project. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.14-2 Public Services

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.15 RECREATION

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ü substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ü might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

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?

No Impact. The project proposes to install a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within the project limits. The project would not create an increase in population in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities, and would not result physical deterioration of these facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. The proposed project would include construction of retaining wall along Alta Vista Way. Thus, no impacts would result in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.15-1 Recreation

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.15-2 Recreation

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and ü 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 congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ü standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ü results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ü incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ü f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or ü otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation of a retaining wall along south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way. Long-term operation of the project would not generate vehicle trips that would adversely affect the circulation system. Moreover, the project would not result in any change in land use, nor it result in any change to roadway capacity. Therefore, there is no long-term impact associated with the proposed project.

Construction traffic would occur during the ten months required for project construction. This short-term traffic would include the transfer of construction equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for soil and construction material. Although construction traffic may have the potential to impact the local circulation system, the scope of construction activity at the site is expected to be limited. It is anticipated that construction would occur as a “rolling” work zone, where work on the retaining wall would proceed along approximately 120 feet at a time. A relatively limited number of construction employees and deliveries would occur, and it is not anticipated that adverse impacts to the local roadway network would occur as a direct result of construction trips.

October 2014 4.16-1 Transportation/Traffic

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

As noted within Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Alta Vista Way is a two-lane roadway serving single- family residential uses in the project area. During the short-term period of project construction, temporary closure of one travel lane would be required during construction hours for construction activities and related vehicles. Thus, vehicle travel along Alta Vista Way along a portion of the project site would be reduced to one travel lane for part of the day. However, at the end of construction activities for the day, all travel lanes would be reopened and available for use.

Although travel capacity along Alta Vista Way would be reduced during construction, it is anticipated that construction would occur as a “rolling” work zone affecting only approximately 120 feet along the roadway at any given time. Alta Vista Way would remain open to traffic in both directions at all times during the construction process. In addition, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would be implemented, which would require the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) during the construction process. The TMP would require such measures as advanced mailings notifying residents of the project, construction signage, in addition to a construction flagperson to assist in maintaining efficient vehicle travel in both directions, particularly during peak travel hours. The TMP would also require steel cover plates over the work area to ensure affected homeowners have access to their driveways at the end of construction activity for the day.

Thus, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

TR-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Laguna Beach shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP shall include measures to minimize potential impacts during the short-term construction process, when a lane closure would be required. It shall include measures such as an advanced mailing to local residents providing notice of the project, construction signage, temporary rerouting plans, the use of steel plates to allow for driveway access, and the need for a construction flagperson to direct traffic and maintain efficient vehicle travel in both directions. The TMP shall be incorporated into project specifications and shall be verified by the City of Laguna Beach Director of Public Works prior to final plan approval. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less Than Significant Impact. At the regional planning level, the Statewide Congestion Management Program (CMP) specifies LOS E (volume to capacity ratio less than or equal to 1.00) as the operating standard for CMP intersections in Orange County. Based on the 2013 Orange County CMP, the nearest CMP roadway segment to the project site is South Coast Highway (approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the site), while the nearest CMP intersection is the intersection of South Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road (approximately two miles to the northwest).

As stated in Response 4.16(a), above, long-term operation of the project would not generate additional vehicle trips along Alta Vista Way. The short-term construction process for the project would result in a minimal number of trips for hauling, equipment delivery/removal, and construction worker trips. Thus, the project would not create the potential for additional traffic that would conflict with an applicable CMP. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.16-2 Transportation/Traffic

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately twelve miles to the northwest. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase the frequency of air traffic or alter air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation of retaining wall along south/southwesterly side of Alta Vista Way. As noted in Response 4.16(a), during the short-term period of project construction, temporary closure of one travel lane would be required during construction hours for construction activities and related vehicles. Thus, vehicle travel along Alta Vista Way along a portion of the project site would be reduced to one travel lane for part of the day. Although this has the potential to result in hazards, implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require numerous safety precautions, including advanced notice to local residents, construction signage, and a construction flagperson to safely direct traffic during periods when a lane requires closure. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TR-1.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Refer to Response 4.8(g), above.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TR-1.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Generally, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts related to travelers along Alta Vista Way, since the proposed retaining wall would enhance the safety and stability of the roadway. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs related to public transit or alternative modes of transportation. There is currently no bus service along Alta Vista Way, nor are there sidewalks along the roadway that would be affected by the project. In addition, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would ensure that Alta Vista Way remains open at all times to traffic (including bicyclists and pedestrians). Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TR-1.

October 2014 4.16-3 Transportation/Traffic

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.16-4 Transportation/Traffic

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ü Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ü facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ü 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 ü expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ü adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ü accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ü related to solid waste?

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

No Impact. The proposed project would result in construction of a retaining wall along Alta Vista Way. The project would not include the construction of any uses capable of producing wastewater. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The proposed project would result in construction of retaining wall along Alta Vista Way within the project limits. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of any water or wastewater treatment facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.17-1 Utilities and Service Systems

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, drainage in the project area is accomplished by downward surface percolation and overland sheet flow, which is generally toward the City’s storm water drainage system within the roadway right of way. One storm drain inlet box is located in front of 503 Alta Vista Way within project limits. The proposed project would not impact the storm drain system, and the proposed project site (including curb and gutter) would be returned to pre-project conditions upon completion of construction. The project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or result in the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to adversely impact local or regional water supplies. The proposed project is the construction of retaining wall and would not need new or expanded water entitlements. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.17(a) and 4.17(b), above.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in construction of retaining wall along Alta Vista Way to support the roadway within the project limits. The project would not include the use of any habitable structures, and would not have the capability to produce solid waste. Although the project may require the disposal of debris during the grading/excavation process (soil, asphalt, etc.), the generation of these materials should be short-term in nature and would not have the capability to substantially affect the capacity of regional landfills. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. The proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City requirements for solid waste generated during the construction process. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

October 2014 4.17-2 Utilities and Service Systems

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ü animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are ü considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly ü or indirectly?

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 periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As shown within Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project site is developed with residential and transportation uses, and exists within an urbanized area. The project would not result in direct impacts to any sensitive species or wildlife habitat. Additionally, the project site would occur within previously disturbed areas occupied by ornamental vegetation. Impacts to sensitive biological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included in order to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds in the event any mature trees are affected during the avian nesting season.

In addition, as described within Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are no known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources existing at the project site. However, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be required in the event unexpected resources are uncovered during the grading the excavation process. With implementation of recommended mitigation, the project is not anticipated to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would result in construction of retaining wall along Alta Vista Way. The project would not result in any new land uses or a change in land use at the site. The project would not result in substantial population growth within the area, either directly or indirectly.

October 2014 4.18-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project’s contribution to these effects is not considered “cumulatively considerable”, in consideration of the relatively nominal impacts of the project and mitigation measures provided. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

October 2014 4.18-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.19 REFERENCES

The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. These documents are available for review at the City of Laguna Beach Community Development Department located at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651.

1. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October 2008, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm.

2. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland 2010 Map, published August 2011.

3. California Department of Transportation website, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways /index.htm, accessed March 10, 2014.

4. California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2011, August, 2013.

5. California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/.

6. City of Laguna Beach, City of Laguna Beach General Plan.

7. City of Laguna Beach, City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

8. Cogstone Resource Management, Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of The Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Replacement Project, May 2014.

9. Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mandated_reports.asp, accessed on March 17, 2014.

10. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0419J, Panel 419 of 539, revised December 3, 2009.

11. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.

12. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_ Manual.pdf.

13. Geofirm, Addendum Geotechnical Evaluation for Alta Vista Way Retaining Walls, November 5, 2013.

14. Geofirm, Geotechnical Review and Recommendations for Alta Vista Way Retaining Walls, January 9, 2013.

15. Google Earth Maps, http://maps.google.com, accessed May 2014.

16. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review, 2008.

17. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2012, http://www. aqmd.gov/aqmp/aqmpintro.htm.

18. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993, http://www. aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html.

October 2014 4.19-1 References

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

19. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, June 2003 (revised 2009), http://www.aqmd.gov/ CEQA/handbook/LST/LST.html.

20. State of California Department of Conservation website, Regulatory Maps, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ WH/regulatorymaps.htm.

21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, HCP/NCCP Planning Areas in Southern California, October 2008.

October 2014 4.19-2 References

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL

City of Laguna Beach (Lead Agency) 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, California 92651 949.497.0792

Tom Sandefur, Associate Civil Engineer

RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949.472.3505

Chad Harden, P.E., S.E., Project Engineer Chris Cho, P.E., S.E., Design Engineer Alan Ashimine, Environmental Project Manager Eddie Torres, INCE, Air Quality and Noise Manager Achilles Malisos, Air Quality and Noise Specialist Leili Namazi, Environmental Associate Linda Bo, Graphic Artist/Technical Editor

Cogstone Resource Management (Cultural Resources) 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange, California 92865 714.974.8300

Sherri Gust, Registered Professional Archaeologist

October 2014 4.20-1 Report Preparation Personnel

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 4.20-2 Report Preparation Personnel

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

AESTHETICS

AIR QUALITY

• Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied;

• All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;

• Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area;

• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;

• Visible dust beyond the project limits which emanates from the project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible;

• All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and

• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

October 2014 5-1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any), approved by the biological monitor, shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests shall occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and any other appropriate agency.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

• No welding or other activity capable of ignition shall occur near vegetation within and surrounding the site;

• A fire extinguisher shall be maintained on-site and readily accessible for use in the event of a fire; and

• The construction contractor shall have a designated employee responsible for fire safety on- site during all construction activity.

NOISE

N-1 Prior to issuance of a Demolition or Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development shall verify that the project complies with the following:

October 2014 5-2 Inventory of Mitigation Measures

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.).

• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

• Construction equipment staging areas shall be located as far away from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

October 2014 5-3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 5-4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION

Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, we recommend that the City prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the Alta Vista Way Retaining Wall Project. We find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a number of environmental issues, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second category be selected for the City’s determination (See Section 7.0, Lead Agency Determination).

October 2014 Date Alan Ashimine, Environmental Project Manager RBF Consulting

October 2014 6-1 Consultant Recommendation

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 6-2 Consultant Recommendation

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the f environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 5.0 have been added. A ü MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and f an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been f addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Signature:

Title: Associate Civil Engineer

Printed Name: Tom Sandefur

Agency: City of Laguna Beach

Date: October 2014

October 2014 7-1 Lead Agency Determination

ALTA VISTA WAY RETAINING WALL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

October 2014 7-2 Lead Agency Determination