The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 - Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2ATO: FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report January 22, 2019 Agenda Item No. 14 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, dawebb@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Robert Stein, Assistant City Engineer, rstein(@newportbeachca.gov Makana Nova, Associate Planner, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3322 and 949-644-3249 TITLE: Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A — Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Approve Project Design ABSTRACT: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approval of the design of the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project -Phase 2a. RECOMMENDATION: a) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-9, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2018-001 (SCH No. 2018081098) for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitation Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2A (PA2018-078), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, prepared for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2A (PA2018-078), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; and b) Approve the design for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: This is a joint project between the City and the Newport Bay Conservancy. Project design is funded by the Newport Bay Conservancy through a joint license agreement. If the MND is adopted, the Newport Bay Conservancy, assisted by City staff, will pursue grant funding for project construction and implementation. A license agreement between the City and the Newport Bay Conservancy will be considered by the City Council at a later date if grant funding is secured. 14-1 Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2a Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Approve Project Design January 22, 2019 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The proposed project site, referred to as Phase 2a, is located in the City's Big Canyon Park between Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road in the center section of the Big Canyon Nature Park (the dashed yellow area of the Location Map in Attachment No. CC 2). Over the past century, the creek and canyon habitat have been impacted by stockpiling and spreading of bay dredge spoils over the site, streambed erosion, degraded creek water quality, and the disappearance of native plants and trees. Additionally, the proliferation and expansion of a Brazilian Pepper Tree grove has overgrown a large area of the lowlands, greatly reducing the habitat value and becoming a concealment for improper and/or illegal night time activities. Phase 2a includes the restoration of historic riparian habitat over the 11.3 -acre site by removing non-native vegetation and replanting native species, creating a mosaic of native and sustainable habitats as well as stabilizing the creek and floodplain with erosion control measures. Additionally, improved/enhanced trails and closure of illegal trails for public access and education is part of the project. The project also includes maintenance of the restored habitat area and erosion control measures to ensure that the plants are established and erosion control features function as designed. Appropriate management of the natural resources within Big Canyon Park is important to meet the City's goal of enhancing habitat and recreational resources within existing open space. The proposed habitat restoration project is planned in coordination with the Resource and Recreation Management Plan (RRMP) prepared by the Irvine Ranch Conservancy under contract with the City of Newport Beach for the Big Canyon Nature Park. The RRMP provides a framework for long term management, habitat restoration, and recreational improvements of the park. Phase 1 of the habitat restoration project was completed in mid -2017. Currently, the Newport Bay Conservancy is pursuing grant funding to implement Phase 2a (proposed project). Future restoration phases will be proposed as a separate project, as future funding is available. Potential future restoration efforts within Big Canyon would also be coordinated with the RRMP. Harbor. Beaches. and Recreation Commission The proposed restoration project was brought to the Parks, Beaches and Restoration Commission on December 4, 2018. The Commission authorized the removal of the Pepper Trees in accordance with Council Policy G-1 and recommended approval of the project by City Council. With adoption of the MND for CEQA compliance, Newport Bay Conservancy, assisted by City staff, can submit permit applications to the regulatory agencies including the California Coastal Commission for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Coastal Commission has jurisdiction as the project site is designated as Tidelands Trust. 14-2 Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2a Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Approve Project Design January 22, 2019 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study and MND have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental categories within which the project would have either no impact or less than significant impact were: Aesthetics, Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Geology/Soils and Seismicity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/ Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, there were no environmental categories within which the project would have potentially significant unavoidable impacts. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise. A MMRP has been prepared for consideration and is included with the Final Initial Study/MND as Exhibit "D" of the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 1). The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on September 4, 2018 and ending on October 5, 2018. Nine public and agency comment letters were submitted for consideration and are included with responses as Exhibit "C" of Attachment No. CC 1. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses have been prepared for each of the comment letters and they will be included in the Final Initial Study/MND. The errata and final version of the MND are provided as Exhibit "D" of Attachment No. CC 1. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. NOTICING: As part of the MND public review process, the City mailed the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a MND with a detailed description of the project to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site including the Bluffs Homeowners' Community Association and the Eastbluff Apartment Owners' Association. Notices were also posted at the main trail entrances within Big Canyon Park. Additionally, notice of the MND public review period and process was published in the Daily Pilot. Since the Notice of Availability announced a Zoning Administrator meeting date of October 8, 2018, a second notice was prepared and distributed in the manner described above indicating the January 22, 2019 City Council meeting date. 14-3 Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2a Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Approve Project Design January 22, 2019 Page 4 The agenda item was also noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment CC 1 — Resolution Adopting MND No. ND2018-001 Attachment CC 2 — Vicinity Map Attachment CC 3 — Big Canyon Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2a Design Plans 14-4 ATTACHMENT NO. CC 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2018-001 (SCH#2018081098) FOR THE BIG CANYON COASTAL HABITAT RESTORATION AND ADAPTATION PROJECT - PHASE 2A (PA2018-078) WHEREAS, Big Canyon Park is located at 1900 Back Bay Drive in the City of Newport Beach ("City") (Assessor's Parcel No. 440-092-79) and is legally described as shown in Exhibit "A"; WHEREAS, Big Canyon Park is a valuable natural resource and recreational opportunity that includes coastal scrub, riparian scrub, riparian forest, alkali -saline wetland, and freshwater emergent wetland habitats native to Southern California and worthy of continuous protection, conservation, and management efforts to preserve it; WHEREAS, large areas of the creek and native riparian habitat of the Big Canyon Park have been overtaken by non-native invasive species; WHEREAS, urbanization in the Big Canyon watershed has resulted in increased peak and sustained peak storm flows which have incised the channel bed and eroded channel banks in Big Canyon Creek within the Big Canyon Nature Park resulting in reduced floodplain connectivity and unstable embankments; WHEREAS, Big Canyon Creek is listed as an impaired waterbody for selenium and a total maximum daily load ("TMDL") has been established for the creek; WHEREAS, the 2009 Central Orange County Integrated Regional and Coastal Watershed Management Plan lists restoration of Big Canyon Nature Park as a key project for implementing restoration objectives in Upper Newport Bay; WHEREAS, the proposed Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A ("Project") is in conformance with the 2014 guidelines of the Big Canyon Resource and Recreation Management Plan ("RRMP") and is also consistent with the requirements of the Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan ("NCCP") for the Central and Coastal sub -region of Orange County in the event the City elects to incorporate the Big Canyon Nature Park into the NCCP; WHEREAS, implementation of the Project will: (1) restore historic wetland and riparian habitat by removing non-native vegetation, restoring the area with native plantings, (2) stabilize the creek and floodplain, and (3) improve water quality in Big Canyon Creek and Newport Bay by eliminating stagnant area in Big Canyon Creek; 14-5 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends, a California nonprofit corporation, doing business as Newport Bay Conservancy ("Newport Bay Conservancy"), has received a grant from the California Ocean Protection Council to prepare construction documents for the Project; WHEREAS, the Newport Bay Conservancy has entered into a Revocable License Agreement dated February 12, 2018 ("License Agreement'), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B," from the City to perform design tasks and prepare the construction documents; WHEREAS, a public meeting was held by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission on December 4, 2018, in the City Council chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission at this meeting. At this meeting, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Project design; WHEREAS, a public meeting was held by the City Council on January 22, 2019, in the City Council chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the City Council at this hearing; and WHEREAS, after thoroughly considering the mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for the Project, the public testimony, and written submissions of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the MND: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Project - Phase 2A ("Project') is defined as a project and as such subject to environmental review. 2. The City and Newport Bay Conservancy caused to be prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3. 3. Notice of the availability of the draft MND was provided and the draft MND was made available for public review for a thirty (30) -day comment period beginning on September 4, 2018 and ending October 5, 2018. Notice of the Availability of the draft MND was given in accordance with CEQA, the State 14-6 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 3 of 4 CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. Nine (9) comment letters were received during the thirty (30) -day public review period. 4. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses to the nine (9) comments received were prepared. The comments and responses were considered by the City Council while considering the adoption of the MND. The comments to the MND and responses to comments do not change the determinations or represent a significant departure from the original document that would warrant recirculation of the MND. 5. The Draft MND and the Final MND (which includes the Responses to Comments, Errata, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP")) are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits "C," "D," and "E," respectively. The documents and all related materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 1 B, Newport Beach, California 92660. 6. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that are compromised by the Project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the Project. The mitigation measures identified by the MND and incorporated in the MMRP are feasible and will reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows.. Section 1: The City Council does hereby adopt MND No. ND2018-001 (SCH#2018081098) attached as Exhibits "C" and "D," and "E" incorporated herein by reference, which together comprise the MND. Section 2: The City Council does hereby direct the Public Works Director and the Newport Bay Conservancy to incorporate the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP included in the Final MND that is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" in the plans and specifications for the Project to be implemented. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct, constitute, in part, the findings of the City Council for the adoption of the attached MND, and are incorporated in the operative part of this resolution. 14-7 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 4 of 4 Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: The requirement for environmental review under CEQA is satisfied by the Draft MND and the Final MND (which includes the City Planning Division's Responses to Comments) that are attached hereto as Exhibits "C" and "D," respectively. Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 22,d day of January, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S O CE �r aron C. Harp C'hM 00140 City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Revocable License Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends DBA Newport Bay Conservancy Exhibit C — Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit D — Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit E — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14-8 EXHIBIT A Legal Description 14-9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ss--399sob THOSE PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 52, 53, 55 AND 56 OF IRVINE SUBDIVISION AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 88, OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 96 OF TRACT NO. 5877 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 218 PAGES 10 THROUGH 13, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF SAID COUNTY. THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 96 NORTH 210 56' 18" EAST 166.01 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND ITS PROLONGATION NORTH 260 03' 21" WEST 204.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 620 .14' 29" WEST 605.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 310 40' 00" WEST 74.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58" 08' 56" WEST 68.81 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 127 OF TRACT NO. 5435 AS PER MAP RECORDED PN BOOK 200 PAGES 17 THROUGH 21, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 480 12' 59" WEST 10.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BACK BAY DRIVE 40.00 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 5435 SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 420.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 480 12' 59" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 132.70 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 180 06' 09"; THENCE NON TANGENT TO SAID LAST CURVE SOUTH 600 I1' 27" EAST 438.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 173.20 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY 181.37 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 600 00' 00"; THENCE SOUTH 00 11' 27" EAST 164.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 173.20 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY 181.37 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 600 00' 00"; THENCE SOUTH 600 11' 27" EAST 240.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 540 48' 33" WEST, EAST 133.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY' HAVING A RADIUS OF 187.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 114.38 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 350 00' 00"; THENCE SOUTH 890 48' 33" WEST 371.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 272.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 213.96'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 440 48' 33" WEST 129.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 130 35' 59" WEST 167.71 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF A LINE HAVING A BEARING NORTH 630 08' 32" WEST, 344.46 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4 OF TRACT NO. 6947 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 285 PAGES 8 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF SAID COUNTY, THENCE FROM SAID INTERSECTION SOUTH 630 08' 32" EAST 271.66 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT L OF TRACT NO. 6947; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 6 THE FOLLOWING COURSES: EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 2 14-10 85--399606 •�' NORTH 66°11'48" EAST 31.99 FEET; SOUTH 88047112" EAST 62.00 FEET; NORTH 47004148" EAST 100.00 FEET; NORTH 85059'48" EAST 66.00 FEET; SOUTH 47052'12" EAST 273.00 FEET; SOUTH 77020'12" EAST 118.00 FEET; NORTH 74014'48* EAST 414.01 FEET; SOUTH 76008'12" EAST 93.00 FEET; SOUTH 49045'12" EAST 102.00 FEET; SOUTH 18053'12" EAST 276.01 FEET; SOUTH 47005112" EAST' 230.01 FEET; SOUTH 24052'12" EAST 209.01 FEET; SOUTH 42000112" EAST 238.01 FEET; SOUTH 58045'12" EAST 151.00 FEET; SOUTH 05002112" EAST 135.00 FEET; SOUTH 29025112" EAST 88.71 FEET; TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 132.00 FEET WIDE AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 7964 PAGE 631 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY SAID WESTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 5950.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE THROUGH WHICH SEARS NORTH 56027'34" WEST THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 645.87 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 27019'16" EAST, 356.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 5425 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 199 PAGES 1 AND 2 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARIES OF LOT 3 THROUGH 10 OF SAID TRACT NO. 5425 AND ALONG THE SOUTH- ERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 96 OF TRACT NO. 5877 THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 62040144" WEST 116.82 FEET; SOUTH 74030'41" WEST 134.75 FEET; SOUTH 64025'41" WEST 136.50 FEET; SOUTH 75042'15" WEST 65.00 FEET; NORTH 16056'18" WEST 10.00 FEET; SOUTH 87028'14" WEST 65.75 FEET; NORTH 57039'52" WEST 95.23 FEET; NORTH 26°59'11" WEST 476.12 FEET; NORTH 03055111" WEST 106.08 FEET; NORTH 36033'13" WEST 134.75 FEET; NORTH 24055'06" WEST 125.52 FEET; NORTH 40006'25" WEST 259.96 FEET; SOUTH 81005'32" WEST 151.77 FEET; NORTH 82041'07" WEST 314.55 FEET; NORTH 53054122" WEST 292.03 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT "B" IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS MADE A PART HEREOF. EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 2 14-11 Qt: ^U a a F l CIL o�� - i ; ao > z Ap to 14-12 w m fDI Z eN•n%i ��.i1a YE •EY A. lo- R.yao_ a ,, 3 3 yy JAMBOREE IoR T9G+-6311 ROAD 037-26g1 OR n ar N ru ' BY 1G_3 bgB.O♦ "o- BACK w uoa E tl �{ p 0 .Zy' �•'afg9' - Uf X29 r C . qg 09 F 4 1 t it c% m o• enc `i IGG OI uN / o m •' z w Q ti � -moi i• '� i° tl V m� ti ti Tg ° QA O 9 0 0 C pIq O m v a t. 0 Ir.N• m O J 14-12 w m fDI Z eN•n%i ��.i1a YE •EY A. lo- R.yao_ a ,, 3 3 yy JAMBOREE IoR T9G+-6311 ROAD n ar N J, eQm_ 1 3 m o o it c% m o• enc `i uN oqo V N V 03 yL N 4 m tie P $ a 4 O o 4a oma• L� N ry Co 10 OZ �~ L ti y 14-12 w m fDI Z eN•n%i ��.i1a YE •EY A. lo- R.yao_ a ,, 29'44ST SLY 'w e RrtzT 3 TACT ]42] �•m JAMBOREE IoR T9G+-6311 ROAD R TRACT Nas+x3 14-12 i*:4:11:1 Revocable License Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends DBA Newport Bay Conservancy 14-13 tf) REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT I BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Cl) AND NEWPORT BAY NATURALISTS AND FRIENDS DBA NEWPORT BAY CONSERVANCY FOR TEMPORARY USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR RESTORATION WORK IN BIG CANYON THIS REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR RESTORATION WORK IN BIG CANYON ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of this 12th day of February, 2018 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city ("City"), and NEWPORT BAY NATURALISTS AND FRIENDS, a California non-profit public benefit corporation doing business as ("DBA") NEWPORT BAY CONSERVANCY ("Licensee"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. City is the owner of real property commonly known as the Big Canyon Nature Park, located in Sections 24 and 25 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West of the Newport Beach 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle within the lowest subwatershed of the Big Canyon Watershed situated west of Jamboree Road and east of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's freshwater lake, and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto ("License Area"). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is the owner of real property commonly known as Big Canyon Freshwater Lake, located just upstream of Back Bay Drive within Big Canyon, depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto ("CDFW Area") (collectively the "Property"). B. Licensee is the recipient of a State Coastal Conservancy grant (Grant No. 17-018- 01) ("Grant"). The Grant provides Licensee with funds to conduct various land surveys and studies regarding the design to restore Big Canyon Nature Park ("Services"). C. Licensee will enter into a separate Professional Services Agreement with Environmental Science Associates, a California corporation ("ESA"), for the provision of such Services for the Property. D. Licensee has requested of City that it and its agent ESA be allowed onto the License Area for the purposes of conducting the Services as to the License Area. E. In consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, City hereby grants to Licensee the revocable right to enter and temporarily occupy and 14-14 use the License Area, and Licensee accepts the same on it and ESA's behalf on the following terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. LICENSE 1.1 City grants a non-exclusive license ("License") to Licensee on behalf of itself and its agent ESA for the term of this Agreement to enter and temporarily occupy and use the License Area located in the City of Newport Beach, as further depicted on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, in order to facilitate the Services. 1.2 The License granted herein is subject to the terms, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, and Licensee covenants, as a material part of the consideration for this License, to keep and perform each term, covenant and condition of this Agreement. 2. USE OF THE LICENSE AREA Licensee's use of the License Area shall be limited to the terms of this Agreement. 3. PERMITS AND LICENSES Licensee, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, licenses and certificates that may be required by any governmental agency, including City. 4. TERM 4.1 The term of this License shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until July 31, 2020, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 4.2 The City Manager or designee may renew this Agreement for additional ninety (90) day term if it is determined that (i) that the terms of the Agreement have been met; and (ii) the use by Licensee is not causing any negative impact on surrounding properties and uses. Any renewals approved pursuant to this Section 4 must be in writing and approved as to form by the City Attorney for the City. 5. RESERVED 6. PURPOSE OF THIS LICENSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the entry and temporary use and occupation of the License Area within the Property. Use of area outside the License Area will not be allowed unless prior permission is given in writing by the City. Licensee agrees to use the License Area only for the activities described herein, and not to use or permit Newport Bay Conservancy Page 2 14-15 the use of the License Area for any other purpose without first obtaining the prior written consent of City, which consent may be withheld in City's sole discretion. Acceptable activities include: 1) Biological and water quality monitoring; 2) Visual inspections for cultural, archeological and paleontological resources; 3) Surveying; 4) Planning and design field trips; and 5) Any other work necessary to perform the Services consistent with the Grant. 7. CONDITIONS OF LICENSE Licensee shall comply with the following conditions prior to the commencement of use of the License Area: 7.1 Licensee shall procure and maintain any and all required licenses, permits and certifications in accordance with Section 3 above. 7.2 Licensee shall work with adjacent property owners to reach agreement over the use of land outside of the License Area. 7.3 No improvements to the License Area are permitted, other than those set forth in Section 6 above. 7.4 Licensee shall be responsible for maintenance of the License Area including, but not limited to, the routine removal of any foreign material, waste, and debris. 7.5 City shall be entitled, with a Licensee representative, to inspect the License Area for compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and with all applicable Federal, State and local (including those of the City) government regulations. 8. TERMINATION OF LICENSE 8.1 Notwithstanding the term of this License, this License may be terminated during the term or any extended term in the following manner: 1) By Licensee: At any time, without cause upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notice of termination to City; 2) By City: At any time, without cause upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notice of termination to Licensee; or 3) If, after written notice of default to Licensee of any of the terms or conditions of this License, Licensee fails to cure or correct the default within ten (10) business days of receipt of written notice, City may immediately terminate the License. Newport Bay Conservancy Page 3 14-16 9. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. City's Public Works Director, or designee, shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The License Administrator or their authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to this Agreement. 10. INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES 10.1 Licensee, on behalf of itself and any of its agents, shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims"), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this License by Licensee or its agents, any work performed or services provided under this License by Licensee or it agents, including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Licensee's or its agents' presence or activities conducted that relate in any way to this License (including the negligent and/or willful acts, errors and/or omissions of Licensee, employees, vendors, agents, suppliers, and anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Licensee to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this License. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Licensee. 10.2 Licensee shall be liable and responsible for the security, repair and maintenance of the License Area to the extent necessitated by Licensee's use of the License Area under this License, for such time as this License is in effect. Licensee shall use care to protect the License Area and restore it to its original condition or to the conditions in Section 6 above, to the satisfaction of the City when the License Area is not in use by Licensee. 11. INSURANCE Without limiting Licensee's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Licensee shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement or for other periods as specified in this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type, amounts, terms and conditions described in the Insurance Requirements attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference. Newport Bay Conservancy Page 4 14-17 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER This License shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written approval of City which approval may be withheld in the City's sole discretion. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Licensee or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 ("Act"), which (a) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this License, and (b) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, Licensee shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Notwithstanding Section 9.1.3, failure to conform to the requirements of the Act constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this License by City. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Licensee's violation of this Section. 14. NOTICE 14.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this License shall be given in writing, and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Licensee to City shall be addressed to City at: Public Works Department City of Newport Beach Attn: Assistant City Engineer 100 Civic Center Drive PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 14.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Licensee shall be addressed to Licensee at: Newport Bay Conservancy Attn: Peter Bryant 2301 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 15. STANDARD PROVISIONS 15.1 Recitals. City and Licensee acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Newport Bay Conservancy Page 5 14-18 15.2 Compliance with all Laws. Licensee shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. In addition, all work prepared by Licensee shall conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator. 15.3 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 15.4 Inte rated Agreement. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 15.5 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the License or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 15.6 Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Licensee and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 15.7 Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 15.8 Controlling Law and Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 15.9 Taxes. Licensee acknowledges that the License granted herein may be subject to possessory interest taxes. Licensee shall have the sole obligation to pay any taxes, fees and assessments, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise out of Licensee's License hereunder. Licensee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City against any and all such taxes, fees, penalties or interest assessed, or imposed against City hereunder. 15.10 No Third Partv Rights. The Parties do not intend to create rights in or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement, or of any duty, covenant, obligation or undertaking established herein. 15.11 No Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute under the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall not be entitled to attorneys' fees. Newport Bay Conservancy Page 6 14-19 15.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] Newport Bay Conservancy Page 7 14-20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this License to be executed on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY ATTORNEY5 OFFICE a California municipal corporation Date: Date:_ By: By. Aaron C. arp4L'"L�F Da City Attorney City Manager ATTEST: Date:_ c3•ZZ, ] g r By:� Leilani I. Brown City Clerk L► Foca Attachments LICENSEE: NEWPORT BAY NATURALISTS AND FRIENDS, a California non-profit public benefit corporation doing business as ("DBA") NEWPORT BA ONSERVANCY Date: l BY r-, Peter Bryant President Date: Z. r ;F— 1 — t '2:� l ' By: Pamela Winkler Secretary [END OF SIGNATURES] Exhibit A: Depiction of CDFW Area and License Area Exhibit B: Insurance Requirements Newport Bay Conservancy Page 8 14-21 EXHIBIT A DEPICTION OF PROPERTY AND LICENSE AREA Newport Bay Conservancy Page A-1 14-22 jk ., V"i 14 - �4NiZA FAM lop, 11 L 1 I ^!1 CJI «,x ., ��- ��.rb SAI .• ��9�+� �i Gos WPy OOr Ae 40 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Provision of Insurance. Without limiting Licensee's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Licensee shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. Licensee agrees to provide insurance in accordance with requirements set forth here. If Licensee uses existing coverage to comply and that coverage does not meet these requirements, Licensee agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage. 2. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. 3. Coverage Requirements. A. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Licensee shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance, statutory limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident for bodily injury by accident and each employee for bodily injury by disease in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code. Licensee shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. C. General Liability Insurance. Licensee shall maintain commercial general liability insurance, and if necessary umbrella liability insurance, with coverage at least as broad as provided by Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, personal and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract) with no endorsement or modification limiting the scope of coverage for liability assumed under a contract. The commercial general liability insurance must include coverage for sexual abuselmolestation and corporal punishment. D. Automobile Liability Insurance. Licensee shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of Licensee Newport Bay Conservancy Page B-1 14-24 arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit each accident. 4. Worker's Compensation Insurance Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: A. Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Licensee or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Licensee hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers from each of its subcontractors. B. Additional Insured Status. All liability policies including general liability, excess liability and automobile liability, if required, but not including professional liability, shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be included as insureds under such policies. C. Primary and Non -Contributory. All liability coverage shall apply on a primary basis and shall not require contribution from any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City. D. Notice of Cancellation. All policies shall provide City with thirty (30) calendar days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10) calendar days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. 5. Additional Agreements Between the Parties. The parties hereby agree to the following: A. Evidence of Insurance. Licensee shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation and other endorsements as specified herein for each coverage. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. B. City's Right to Revise Requirements. City reserves the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to change the amounts and types of Newport Bay Conservancy Page B-2 14-25 insurance required by giving Licensee sixty (60) calendar days advance written notice of such change. C. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Licensee of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. D. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. E. Self-insured Retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self- insurance will not be considered to comply with these requirements unless approved by City. F. City Remedies for Non -Compliance. If Licensee or any subcontractor fails to provide and maintain insurance as required herein, then City shall have the right but not the obligation, to purchase such insurance, to terminate this Agreement, or to suspend Licensee's right to proceed until proper evidence of insurance is provided. G. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor's performance under this Contract, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. H. Licensee's Insurance. Licensee shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Newport Bay Conservancy Page B-3 14-26 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE CHECKLIST City of Newport Beach This checklist is comprised of requirements as outlined by the City of Newport Beach. * Date Received: Date Completed 3/19/18 3/19/18 Dept./Contact Received From: Raymund Sent to: Raymund By: Jan Newport Bay Naturalists & Friends dba: Newport Bay Company/Person required to have certificate: Conservancy Type of contract: Other 1. GENERAL LIABILITY EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: 8/15/17 — 8115/18 A. INSURANCE COMPANY: Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of CA B. AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater): A / VIII C. ADMITTED Company (Must be California Admitted): Is Company admitted in California? ® Yes ❑ No D. LIMITS (Must be $1 M or greater): What is limit provided? $1 M/$2M E. ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT — please attach ® Yes ❑ No F. PRODUCTS AND COMPLETED OPERATIONS (Must include): Is it included? (completed Operations status does N/A F not apply to Waste Haulers or Recreation) ® Yes ❑ No G. ADDITIONAL INSURED FOR PRODUCTS AND ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No H. COMPLETED OPERATIONS ENDORSEMENT (completed ❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No 1. Operations status does not apply to Waste Haulers) ❑ Yes ❑ No H. ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING TO INCLUDE (The City its officers, officials, employees and volunteers): Is it included? ® Yes ❑ No I. PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (Must be included): Is it included? ® Yes ❑ No J. CAUTION! (Confirm that loss or liability of the named insured is not limited solely by their negligence) Does endorsement include "solely by negligence" wording? ❑ Yes ® No K. ELECTED SCMAF COVERAGE (RECREATION ONLY): ® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No L. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: ❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No IL AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: 8/17/17 — 8/17/18 A. INSURANCE COMPANY: Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of CA B. AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater) A / VIII C. ADMITTED COMPANY (Must be California Admitted): Is Company admitted in California? ® Yes ❑ No D. LIMITS - If Employees (Must be $1 M min. BI & PD and $500,000 UM, $2M min for Waste Haulers): What is limits provided? $1,000,000 E. LIMITS Waiver of Auto Insurance / Proof of coverage (if individual) (What is limits provided?) N/A F ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING: ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No G. PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING: ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No H. HIRED AND NON -OWNED AUTO ONLY: ❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No 1. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: ❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No 14-27 III. WORKERS' COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: 8/21/17 — 8/21/18 A. INSURANCE COMPANY: State Compensation Insurance Fund B. AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater): Not Rated C. ADMITTED Company (Must be California Admitted): ® Yes ❑ No D. WORKERS' COMPENSATION LIMIT: Statutory ® Yes ❑ No E. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LIMIT (Must be $1 M or greater) $1,000,000 F. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION (To include): Is it included? ® Yes ❑ No G. SIGNED WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXEMPTION FORM: ® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No H. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: ❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No ADDITIONAL COVERAGE'S THAT MAYBE REQUIRED IV. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY V POLLUTION LIABILITY V BUILDERS RISK HAVE ALL ABOVE REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET? IF NO, WHICH ITEMS NEED TO BE COMPLETED? A 3/19/18 Agent of Alliant Insurance Services Date Broker of record for the City of Newport Beach ® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No RISK MANAGEMENT APPROVAL REQUIRED (Non -admitted carrier rated less than Self Insured Retention or Deductible greater than $ ) ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No Reason for Risk Management approval/exception/waiver: Approved: Risk Management Date * Subject to the terms of the contract. 14-28 EXHIBIT C Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration • Notice of Intent to Adopt • Initial Study • Environmental Analysis • Appendices Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Project — Phase 2A Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2018-001(PA2018-078) State Clearinghouse Number 2018081098 14-29 (Available separate due to bulk) www. newportbeachca.gov/cega 14-30 EXHIBIT D Final Mitigated Negative Declaration including Responses to Comments and Errata Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Project — Phase 2A Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2018-001(PA2018-078) State Clearinghouse Number 201808109 14-31 r 1 'x..711 J January 8, 2019 Makana Nova, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 2121 Alton Parkway Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 949.753.7001 phone 949.753.7002 lax www.esassoo.com Subject: Response to Comments and Errata/Revisions on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2A Dear Ms. Nova, AICP: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A was circulated for public review from September 4, 2018 to October 5, 2018. The City of Newport Beach received seven comment letters, one email and one phone message that included a map. Following are the comments and responses on the IS/MND as well as errata/revisions to the IS/MND. Responses to comments are not required per the CEQA Guidelines for an MND but are provided as a courtesy. Response to Comments The comments that were received are presented in Table 1 and have been bracketed and assigned a comment letter and then each comment has been assigned a number. Letter Name Comment Letters A Citizens of The Bluffs TABLE 1 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVE© Commenter B Tony Knox C Orange County Public Works Comment Email Date of Letter September 12, 2018 September 14, 2018 October 4, 2018 D Robert B. Olds September 25, 2018 Comment Phone Message E Anonymous September 26, 2018 14-32 r ESA Ms. Nova, AiCP January 8, 2019 Page 2 Letter Name Commenter Date of Letter Comment Letter F California Department of Fish and Wildlife October 4, 2018 G South Coast Air Quality Management District October 5. 2018 H California Governors Office of Planning and Research October 2, 2018 1 Cad Cassidy November 14, 2018 14-33 Comment Letter A ,17,ei: September 12, 2018 To: Mr. Kevin Muldoon City Of Newport Beach Mr. David Webb Public Works Director From: Citizens of The Bluffs Newport Beach, CA Subject: Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Plan Per new notifications of intent to adopt a negative Declaration, on behalf of citizens of The Bluffs, we are requesting to maintain the natural Habitat of Big Canyon Natural Preserve Park A-1 and the creek by cleaning up all the debris from old dry broken dead trees, graffiti on the trees and make an effort save the healthy ones. Also installation of appropriate fencing around the Big Canyon Creek area is a must to keep the public out of sensitive habitats and A-2 for safety purposes. We appreciate the beauty of the Big Canyon natural Park environment plays an important role in environmental studies but prefer to maintain this natural preserve native habitat presence as much as possible by avoiding any significant changes to this surrounding Big Canyon natural park area. We would appreciate some minor changes that include the following: A-3 • Installation of more signs placed throughout the entire Big Canyon Natural Park area with same content as current signage 1 • Add to signage that the area is "closed and entrance prohibited from dusk to dawn" or A-4 I 9PM to 6 Am • We want to be assured that the currently installed and authorized metal pole gate on the back Bay Dr side of the Big Canyon adjacent to the Newport Back Bay Parking lot A-5 (picture attached) ) is not going to be removed for the safety of our neighborhood. • We are requesting for regularly random patrolling by police officers or rangers of the Big Canyon nature park from different sides to eliminate camp fires, illegal activities, IA -6 littering, and graffiti, especially in the evening hours for the safety our neighborhood 1 and its citizens. We are requesting that the existing, healthy trees not be removed to prevent erosion from flooding and not creating an unnatural park setting. Thank you for your assistance in supporting these actions in an effort to maintain and sustain A-7 the beauty of The Back Bay. Sincerely, 14-34 Comment Letter A —7 �rn1 12 VIMIJ Signatures of the residents of The Bluffs, NewPort Beach, California 19h7 4,,W C440W- AI-C� 9//2-jjCX AA 1C ".v �5-�- �U 2 ,q � ti�G. �-ia � / S �U /� j - 63 - e 4�0►c of ('FG ✓ is 9 -i3 -J$ �/ k/ao�vs {0t 7 wsly ts-6, L�Ga 9��3/�Q c c2_._ 15'ces v Cq,jpA Z R- (3 A� 9-r3 -1r 501 q �13�1g 2 14-35 �v J Comment Letter A SPpl-c- M 6e�r i 2 j 2okl6 CoAlovn CcokSW Pes-vora+ n Signatures of the residents of The Bluffs, NewPort Beach, California Joyk '1�iNC�� "9S?VS%Q 0741161 V4/ 2!2n% ►��4 9,/-�/!O o 3 r' g S-7 Sam �Rv e2 7. PadoAdftz z7 e4 4 Itxs* _ q/I vh e 5 i c.6 k , 12-6�o 7e� ('711 � 3 14-36 Comment Letter A S' *Mb-qC 12 , 2066 c./lLC !solo' -rc-�` 6 C -0 -op, Cor'sw P�eS�orah�n Signatures of the residents of The Bluffs, NewPort Beach, California 4 0 14-37 Comment Letter A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Notice of Intent 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 to Adopt a Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration g (949) 644-3200 To: From: MOffice of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Division State Clearinghouse 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 1-B P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk, County of Orange Date: 09/04/2018 Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public Review Period: 30 days (September 4, 2018 through October 4, 2018 at 5:30 p.m.) Project Name and Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation - Phase 2A Activity Number. CD2018-027 and ND2018-001 PA2018-078 Project Location: 1900 Back Bay Drive, APN 440-092-79, Big Canyon Park, generally bounded by Back Bay Drive, Amigos Way, Jamboree Road, and Park Newport Drive Project Description: A coastal development permit and mitigated negative declaration for the Phase 2a habitat restoration at an 11.3 -acre site located at the mouth of Big Canyon. The City of Newport and the Newport Bay Conservancy propose to restore historic riparian habitat by removing non-native vegetation and replanting native species, creating a mosaic of native and sustainable habitats, stabilizing the creek and floodplain with erosion control measures, and enhancing public access and education within the Big Canyon Nature Park with improved trails and closure of illegal trails. The project also includes maintenance of the restored habitat area and erosion quality measures to ensure that the plants are established and erosion features function as designed. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental evaluations, standard construction and engineering practices, and the implementation of mitigation measures requiring review and reevaluation of future projects as contributing to avoidance of potential impacts. The project does not include any sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is on file at the Planning Division and is available for review during the comment period cited above between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday and between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The document can also be accessed online at: httos://www.newportbeachca.gov/cepa. Additionally, the document is also available for review at the following City public libraries: Newport Beach Public Library Newport Beach Public Library Newport Beach Public Library Central Library Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 1000 Avocado Avenue 1300 Irvine ¢oulevard 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 The Initial ncludes mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document wi red by the decision -makers rior to fi sed project. Page 1 of 2 14-38 ALCOH&LIC BEVERAGES' All nr. D,&Dw n r�! • LITTERING K - �svlYOKING • GRAF DOGS WITHOUT LEASH :,►..rata SKATEBOARDING -Q GrRIkOts 0P 6 t�.t CSR RE, M.C- ��_BRICKIr ORK, OI" NAlVl`ENT'AL.. MIC. t e m S -T c23 ,628 SUFtFACM PICNIC TABLES SEATING, ATHLETIC +Cc)UftTS, STEPS. 'STPJRS, I~'LANnR WALLS, RETAINING YVALL-s. SCULPrUVJS, OR HANDRAILS, AU VEHICLES ONLY Comment Letter A 14-40 A 4. rt 4. i G •1 I 41 ATIVII 1 5.-� 1ti � tiFF f�4f! .. :•,r t'Yr I} };. T � rT?�T � �+;3 `:4St� 5'» 4l �"��,� }, 7 'sn •ry �^��ar� s •fa;.f �� I �iP. � . y � - � . `� +'� � �;� • ick `.'I •' `AF t w , 1 y,_. . t? .� / � .lel fl' � In �• �' II - I s � i I _ ; i .I. Ily �/ycy� r �+ �� S � ,y?'�� }��S II, �y � ' �:• if� ..3! yfmJ,,, � '.. �` � i /1 �(�J '` +t - +' 1 I - �. 4. �+ � `�ti;ti 1-Fi f r^4�1y,�, '{ ' `4�' _r' I '. �{I�' �• � i :�,. '_ •�i-El�""+' .•�- �, 4i" rf 'is � j i ;!.t �I'� .F.'i if t't'�V� 1:1i. ,I :� � .�Iyr 1� �� I, ,1', ir a %R. 1rt �;2 � 'I •� 1 ;I.V ' .� , + '* I- I, �A, , t�� d`' •A 1 + 1 �� t+ '� `�:• �, r�'}1•" �i-f• 'F '� fi r 1 L r'�$�`'f"�. R I .r ,,�-� t;. _ ''�._ .I�'� �+�T • ��' ft • `I _ jt1.. # �� s� r �: n f ,. - i�, i I V +,�� ' � •' � a I �1�'1 �; �� ri '�j Y .1 3 r r,ry �, 'd7{•`, f �Fr � ; �ti 3 I ,_ ,>, :il y - ►; . .w;' 1 I , t�YJ I C3- }�'J ;•` 1` ' 1 ' �. \"'� _ .. a i -. r�� 5 I •,a 1`? i - r �S I +--r.� 1q/� i I. kk �,i� }r !� �'t •l.� • lt! ! I an �� t l.` �",`1.~ •i- - � � ' `i t� � �({' 'aj 1. r '~i' , I��h'+�a �y '�'"I�Y \ \.'ri 1, �! +I 5rr_ 1 (�13'..,,TjrA�+} - Y 1•a!tl_� ,•� 'r, f �•-c.. f T � , "� _ 4 } • i � 'tea. �1'; t t.� i, y �- 11 ,s Y j h ! IjJlf riy +�_F"i a;g I ',{ � �e � . i ,� ,,;, { r p'�' `� w c' , :' � v,• I I •l � I .1. r,fi y. �_� ``� � � f �• t r �. 1 .'S I.% •f y� - R1 j � i I j \ •� - r u� t .` ji 11. r �+f� { �r �f `i �jaj+'k4•1_,ar��+"1 I�$ i l I .1 �rl,.n F i ! j, fir' 'r �-�__ I� I y� -f I ll{I . ' .I- -- rf .+r'•.' -_ .4'' ,r11'i � 7 ��^�� ' / 1 3' ..�.--! :-, :�]:�S I�r•.F � � < , � t1 `� �. 1 �1 � � � „�,F' 'pllt I' I t � ►�r71 j�F +-�' ��'',� ' I , � �� fs i /I/Jr3 � �S �, :, I.1' ' ri. +' �: � f k'' � . - j. }"tn?�''i t �' �} \ + `E {il � l} ' {T' :I i „�i�1�17ff•��• •� II. I , TJ// 1 ,i !f _,�. ",r- '} _ �F _ ' _ IC'r 1 4+ � '4 E ' /`�. 1 1 i •��• �: , I 'i� I{�/�,/ •Y,� i '_1 I 11 r J ', � - _ _i�� l :,i�- �'7^ �?I s. � I i I, �, � I `, F. f l� I I, I• i -i I IF'• - �' `• I I I f• - 1 r I I ��r 1l'..,.':,, if -{ �� _.>W. ` � r�•'' F i I' rl� iF •�/LI -' _- � - T� �r� iA � �r �dC . ��, ,%1f.♦ 711. �.. � g�' �.�� '�-�' u j * •.'±'''` ,g1�^-,�y�p': i-�= !aF Y - _:ti •--�I/ ', t_ _�IFFti � / y t - � '�, r, ��-. Hyl �` .�r�". 'IC �. •r ,��r�_1�,}7Y+f� +_4 �Y ,�. �{� * •y l��r � \�Y. M„1. r :a - �i- +�Ifj`•1i �� Y _ •.,.� .w.% - �f �_�`5:'��.`` `!•��(r -i�9 ✓-.'� � r ,�:�""'! �:. �Iw:�i.r ...._. �.� titin �.f+[ f '�«.1.'i�i�l[[-iiFT^�i.'r s��... .�. •t , Jm � USA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 13 Comment No. A-1 The comment requests that the natural habitats of the Big Canyon Nature Preserve Park and the creek are maintained by cleaning up all debris from old broken dead trees and graffiti. Response to Comment No. A-1 The proposed Project encompasses 11.32 acres and includes the removal of the non-native habitat that includes the pepper trees and replacement with a mosaic of habitat types consisting of native vegetation. The native habitats on the Project site that includes the freshwater marsh, alkali heath marsh and the Menzies's goldenbush scrub are not proposed to be removed (see Figure 4 of the IS/MND). Up to 0.5 acres of mixed habitat containing native arroyo willows and non-native pepper trees may also be removed, as well as individual willow trees and branches that are infested with the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB). The implementation of the proposed restoration would result in the removal of existing debris from old broken trees as well as the removal of graffiti on the 11.32 -acre project site. Cleaning up all debris from old broken dead trees and graffiti outside of the Project site is not part of the proposed Project. Comment No. A-2 The comment requests the installation of appropriate fencing adjacent to the existing trails that extend around the Big Canyon Creek area to keep the public out of sensitive habitats and for safety purposes. Response to Comment No. A-2 Currently, there is no fencing along the existing trails around the Big Canyon Creek area. Signs along the trails will be included to direct visitors to remain on the trails and out of the habitat restoration area as depicted on Figure 14 in the IS/MND, as amended in the Errata. Temporary construction fencing is proposed to enclose the construction area, and is also illustrated on Figure 15 in the IS/MND, as added in the Errata. The temporary fencing would avoid removal of healthy native vegetation. Operational fencing is not proposed to be installed at the time of the restoration efforts. However, if the City determines a need to install fencing for safety or to prevent the formation of illegal trails into the habitat restoration area, the project would include posts and wire fencing in locations identified on Figure 14 in the ISIMND, as amended in the Errata and illustrated on a new Figure 15 in the IS/MND, as added in the Errata. Comment No. A-3 The comment requests installation of more signs placed throughout the entire Big Canyon Natural Park area with the same content as the current signage. 14-44 r ESA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 14 Response to Comment No. A-3 As illustrated on Figure 14 of the IS/MND, the Project includes proposed interpretive signs and signs for rest areas. The current signs in the Big Canon Nature Park that are located outside of the Project site prohibit certain activities within the park. The Project does not include additional signs that prohibit activities because these signs are appropriate at entrances to the park. Comment No. A-4 This comment requests that signage in the area state that the park is closed and entrance prohibited from dusk to dawn or 9 pm to 6 am. Response to Comment No. A-4 Based on discussions with City staff, there will be a recommendation to modify the park hours restrictions by stating "No Use of Park Between Dusk and Dawn" and eliminate the current restriction which is "No Use of Park Between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM. This recommendation is not a part of the proposed project, but would require an ordinance approved by the City Council at a later date. Comment No. A-5 This comment requests that the currently installed metal pole gate on the Back Bay Drive side of the Big Canyon Nature Park adjacent to the Newport Back Bay Parking lot is retained for the safety of the neighborhood. Response to Comment No. A-5 The existing metal pole gate is located off of the Project site. Modification to the existing gate is not included in the proposed Project. Comment No. A-6 The comment requests that a regular random patrolling by police officers or rangers of the Big Canyon nature park is provided to eliminate camp fires, illegal activities, littering, and graffiti, particularly within the evening hours. Response to Comment No. A-6 According to City staff, the Newport Beach Police Department does not regularly patrol the Big Canyon Nature Park, but will respond to incidents. Recreation and Senior Services also provides a Parks Patrol Officer that provides regular patrol of park areas. After the construction activities for Phase 1 were completed, there have been no incidents within the Phase I area because the trees are not as dense. The removal of the pepper trees 14-45 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 15 within the Project site and the establishment of a meadow habitat within the majority of'the Project site would substantially reduce opportunities for illegal activities because these activities would not be hidden from views. Comment No. A-7 The comment requests that the existing, healthy trees not be removed to prevent erosion from flooding and not create an unnatural park setting. Response to Comment No. A-7 The proposed restoration project would remove non-native trees and selective removal of some native trees that exhibit infestation by Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB). The project will also continue to improve water quality related to selenium resulting from runoff in the areas upstream. In one discrete 0.5 -acre area within the mixed arroyo willow/pepper tree grove as illustrated on Figure 11. some willow trees may be removed to conduct stream and bank stabilization. The project as proposed will improve the long term productivity and health of the site by replacing the invasive pepper trees with native trees within and adjacent to a stabilized stream and floodplain. The proposed restoration plan includes engineering the creek and adjacent area to reduce the potential for erosion during floods. 14-46 Comment Letter B Gentlemen: In response to your Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the above application, be advised that the proposed project will most definite!y have si nificant negative impacts on the environment. In my view, it would be blind and deaf to arrive at any other conclusion. To rip out a B-1 mature forest of evergreen trees standing 20 to 30 feet tall and replacing them with bushes 3 to 4 feet tall will leave this park a hot, barren waste land of little interest to anyone, at least anyone that I know. Here are the significant impacts that I see: 1. Removal of the mature pepper tree forests in this park (3 4 2 (d)&(e) will also: A. Remove ,,,,pr Ep 6Y (kill) the most beautiful habitat in the park COMMUNITY B. Remove the root systems that prevent erosion when the creek floods DEVELOPMENT September 14, 2018 City of Newport Beach Planning Division OCT 0 2 2018 Attn: Makana Nova, Associate Planner I B-5 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 1-B CITY Or Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 I B-7 G. Deprive the existing educational program from utilizing the forest to foster adventure, shade 't�VPORT OPO Re: Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration & Adaptation — Phase 2A - COMMENTS #CD2018-027 and ND2018-001(PA2018-078) study Gentlemen: In response to your Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the above application, be advised that the proposed project will most definite!y have si nificant negative impacts on the environment. In my view, it would be blind and deaf to arrive at any other conclusion. To rip out a B-1 mature forest of evergreen trees standing 20 to 30 feet tall and replacing them with bushes 3 to 4 feet tall will leave this park a hot, barren waste land of little interest to anyone, at least anyone that I know. Here are the significant impacts that I see: 1. Removal of the mature pepper tree forests in this park (3 4 2 (d)&(e) will also: A. Remove I B-2 (kill) the most beautiful habitat in the park B. Remove the root systems that prevent erosion when the creek floods I B-3 C. Remove the tree cover for birds, including two endangered species you noted I B-4 D. Result in intense heat in summer as there will be no shade from the trees I B-5 E. Result in removal of native species that are close to and intermingled with the pepper trees I B-6 F. Prevent new evergreen trees from re -growing I B-7 G. Deprive the existing educational program from utilizing the forest to foster adventure, shade and learning experiences for underprivileged children bussed into the area for nature I B-8 study 1 H. Take away protection for the indigenous animals from surrounding urban intrusion I B-9 I. Interfere with the natural symbiosis between plants and animals existing for decades there I B-10 J. Replace beautiful green with ugly, useless brown brush and stunted green desert plants I B-11 K. Eliminate totally the scenic beauty of the forest from all directions, including the homes and apartments surrounding the park and individuals walking through the park B-12 L. Deplete the oxygen making capacity of the park's habitat — green trees make more oxygen than desert bushes. They also absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2). B-13 M. Contrary to Section 3.4.2 (D) of the project plan, it WILL "Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use". B-14 Discussion: These 13 major impacts are just the beginning. I invite you to walk through Phase 1— it is not anything like a park. It is hot, everything except the dirt paths is full of weeds so tall you cannot see through them and there is no "nature"! There is nothing to do or to see! — only the City's attempt to tame the creek's flood waters and mitigate the soil's salinity and other chemistry. Phase 2A would just extend the horrid result further into the park from Jamboree Road, leaving nothing but an and trail nobody would want to B-15 use, except maybe to traverse the park and exit it as soon as possible. The evergreen forest is the gem, not the foe. The pepper trees have been dubbed "invasive", but so what. There are invasive trees all over the 14-47 Comment Letter B city, and there is no good reason to replace them with "native" vegetation, basically desert scrub. Since I have lived in the area (a quarter century), there have been 2 attempts to replace the scrub outside the B-15 confines of the creek in what is now the park, with native vegetation, to no avail — it still looks like the desert, which it always has been. Mitgation of the pepper trees. It is reported that some of the trees have been infested with some kind of "borer" and eventually this will kill the trees. This has been the mainstay reason for tearing them out, that is, they are going to die anyway, so let's just take them out now. Not a good reason. If they die, they have seeds, and new trees will grow in their stead, as a natural progression of vegetative life. The report does not state that all the trees are infected, so let the uninfected trees stay. The report is silent about whether or how B-16 these trees might be treated to protect against the "borers" - would that be better than tearing down all the forests? We need more light shined on this alternative. Thinning out the forest makes sense not only from the perspective of users' enjoyment and the neighborhoods' lovely view out over the forests, but also increasing the utility of the forest as an integral part of the park, where new nature trails might be made so that the public could actually use the forest instead of just viewing it. Use of the forest — another view. Apart from rare vandalism, e.g. burning of palm trees not too long ago, the forest has been primeval and undebased — until very recently. Neighbors have told me that nefarious activities are now occurring there, particularly from young people from out of town, e.g. smoking pot, sex, and most recently, graffiti on the trees themselves. To preserve the forest, it has been suggested that the city fence off the forest with a gate to be opened only for scheduled uses, e.g. educational programs. That seems a good idea, because the city's idea of promoting use of the nature park (whereas it has been inconspicuous before now) is bound to also promote accelerated vandalism, not only in the forest but B-17 throughout the park. That means more police surveillance and visitor fear and reluctance. So, consider keeping the evergreen forest and preserving it from vandalism. One last thought from a neighbor: if you really are intent on tearing out all these trees, you should erect a fence along the fire road above the forest where it is very possible that people could fall over the cliff, such as where the fire road Ts into the other dirt road which goes left to the Bluffs and right towards Jamboree Road under the apartments. And oh — an afterthought — the parking lot, which I understand is owned by the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, but is in the city limits, needs to be chained off at night (or speed bumps installed, or both) because in the last few months, almost every night between 10 PM and 2 AM there are cars doing really B-18 loud brodies there, which is (mildly to very) disturbing to hundreds of nearby residents. A hidden motion actuated camera might catch these (probably juvenile) culprits. 2. Construction of this project will denude the land with no guarantee that replanting with immature native_ bushes will prevent severe erosion from flood waters of Big Canyon Creek. Discussion: It cannot be denied that the centerpiece of this park is a creek. This creek undoubtedly formed the canyon through which it flows. In other words, historic hydraulic forces carved out this canyon, just as such forces carved out our mini Grand Canyon back bay, now seen from space. The point is that hydraulic forces of flood waters take out small vegetation along with soil, and in nature, only strong trees, if anything, can withstand such forces and afford protection to smaller, sturdier and mature plants. Removal of the forests in this park cannot help but to destroy the plants which the city intends to replace the trees with — all it will take is a good winter storm to wipe out the park's new plant life and leave an ugly mess. Replanting after that is always subject to the vagaries of future storms, not to mention the cost to taxpayers of funding this process. A much better scenario is the forest left in tact, thinned out for better park use, but remaining to • am Comment Letter B continue protecting the canyon, its inhabitants and provide a worthy habitat for the creek. 3. Heavy equipment and hundreds of truckloads of earth uprooted trees and vegetation over a period of several months in the rainy winter season will be seen, heard smelled and endured unnecessarily by park goers, joggers, cyclists, regular street traffic and surrounding neighborhoods, resulting in the following significant impacts: A. NOISE. The plan calls for 5 months (weather permitting during winter) of 6 -day -a -week destruction/construction followed by more months of repairing, planting, landscaping and maintenance of the newly manufactured contours of this park. This is a BIG, intensive project. This means big noise. Presently the park is completely silent. Quite a contrast to utter tranquility. 1. Excessive noise will be made by enormous diesel dump trucks traversing the dirt roads of the park (hundreds and hundreds of trips are projected to haul dirt, trees etc). 2. Heavy diesel earth moving equipment, like bulldozers, backhoes etc. will be employed to regrade the banks of the creek and other loud equipment will be needed to uproot all the trees etc, 3. Loud chain saws will cut up the trees and other "unwanted" plants 4. Stump grinders and tree chippers will scream. Those of us who live on the bluffs of this park (like I do) know that you can sometimes hear voices across the back bay, it is that quiet. The loud, excessive noise and vibration from this project over the course of many months will most certainly irritate every person within earshot, and it will deprive all the hundreds of surrounding residences of peace and quiet. t B-19 E B. AHbWATER POLLUTION. Plenty of dust, diesel and gasoline fumes, pollen, construction and plant particulate will contaminate the air in, on, around and over the project site and the surrounding neighborhoods. The creek itself cannot be fully protected against construction and earth moving work, let B-21 alone changing its banks and meanderings. The creek's pollution, of course, runs out into the harbor via the back bay. C. VEHICULAR DANGER. The project depends on all the necessary workers, vendors, trucks and equipment to access the park, coming and going, via Back Bay Road. As a lot of us know, Back Bay Road is dangerous already, because it is not a real road but a multi -use TRAIL It was obviously designed as very slow (15 MPH max) one-way travel except for bicyclists, who share the trail with motorized vehicles, joggers, baby carriages, lots of dogs and pedestrians, all within feet of each other without curbs or center dividers. Back Bay Road is not straight, but rather a series of reverse curves, some of them blind. Not uncommonly, motorists who embark on the trail will become worried or disoriented and turn around and go B-22 the wrong way to exit, rather than complete the course, despite the "Wrong Way" signs. Heavy trucks and equipment plus all the other traffic on this narrow, one-way trail will create unusually dangerous condition for all users, especially those exposed to extra wide vehicles which will encroach on to the bike lanes and cause bicyclists to encroach into the pedestrians lane.That, combined with the dust and noise of construction vehicles will make the Back Bay Road untenable. Discussion: The above impacts (A, B & C) on humans are self evident. They are many, and they are more than "significant". In totality, they preclude the magnitude of and misguided vision for this project. But how B-23 about the animals. The park is full of animals. They have no voice to speak out or object. Their only choice is to leave the area and take their chances somewhere else, or try to survive in a much changed environment 3 14-49 Comment Letter B of construction, deforestation, and confrontation. Some of the animals are admittedly "endangered species". A lot of animals will be displaced, injured or killed. That is not what we want. B-23 4. Destruction of aboriginal historical site. Native American artifacts and evidence of aboriginal culture dating back perhaps 5000 to 10,000 years ago are likely in the zone of proposed construction and must be identified and preserved; if this is not possible, neither should this project be approved or pursued further. It is well documented that local villages of Native Americans once lived on the shores and canyons of our back bay, particularly on the side of the back bay where this project is intended, such as the Moyogna, or perhaps outposts of the Kenyaangna, both of which were tribes in Newport Beach. Known variously as the Gabrielino, Tongva or Kizh (pronounced "Keech"), these aboriginals left many artifacts and other indicia of their civilization, some of which has been saved from other construction projects in our city. These must be found, preserved and turned over to the descendents of these people. Reference: http://gabrielenoindians.org/ and http://socalstoKyteHinp-.blogspot.com/ I have personally spoken with people driving through the park claiming to represent the Kizh nation who say they have found native artifacts there. I have re -read this letter and have to add, if this isn't convincing, I don't know what is. Respectfully, Tny Knox 94 721-8311 P. O. Box 8678 Newport Beach, CA 92658 4 B-24 14-50 r ES J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 20 Comment No. B-1 This comment expressed an opinion that the proposed Project will most definitely have significant negative impacts. Response to Comment No. B-1 As discussed in the IS/FIND, there are potential significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and noise; however. mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the potential significant impacts to less than significant. Comment No. B-2 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would remove (kill) the most beautiful habitat in the park. Response to Comment No. B-2 This comment expressed an opinion and does not address the contents of the IS/MND. The proposed project includes restoration with native habitats and the removal of non-native vegetation. Although the restoration would alter existing views from Jamboree Road, Back Bay Drive, as well as the public viewpoint west of the project site, the quality of the views of the project site would be subjective, but would remain aesthetically pleasing, and impacts to the scenic quality of the project area would be less than significant. Comment No. B-3 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would remove the root systems that prevent erosion when the creek floods. Response to Comment No. B-3 Construction activities would remove the root system of the existing pepper trees. The proposed restoration plan includes engineering the creek and adjacent areas as well as establishing resilient and adaptive habitat areas to reduce the potential for erosion during floods. The project includes erosion control measures as part of the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP) located on pages 2, 6, and 8 of the 60% Design Plans in Appendix A of the ISIMND. In addition, the project includes long-term stabilization measures as part of the Water Quality Management Plan to convey seasonal inundation and reduce potential erosion. Comment No. B-4 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would remove the tree cover for birds, including two endangered species. 14-51 r ESA J Ms. Nova, A1CP January &, 2014 Page 21 Response to Comment No. B-4 One State and federally -listed Endangered species, least Bell's vireo, which is common to riparian habitat at low elevations and may occur occasionally in the vicinity of the Project site but has not been reported in the project area. California gnatcatcher, which is federally -listed as Threatened is known to occur in coastal sage scrub habitat to the south and west of the project area but does not occur on the Project site. The pepper trees are non- native and do not provide suitable habitat for either species. Current use of the project area by other avian species is very low as compared with areas containing more native vegetation. Although there may be a temporary disturbance to nesting habitat and permanent removal of non-native stands of trees, all construction activities would occur outside of nesting season or nesting surveys would be conducted_ There will be an overall benefit to native avian species, as well as other wildlife, through implementation of the proposed project by restoring native habitat to the area, which can be utilized for nesting and foraging. Comment No. B-5 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would result in intense heat in summer as there will be no shade from the trees. Response to Comment No. B-5 This comment expressed an opinion and does not address the contents of the IS/MND. The vegetation proposed as part of the restoration is better suited to provide habitat for native wildlife than the existing non-native trees and shrubs. Comment No. B-6 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would result in removal of native species that are close to and intermingled with the pepper trees. Response to Comment No. B-6 The existing pepper trees which are non-native do not provide good habitat value for native plant or wildlife species. The description of the proposed project acknowledged that some removal or damage of native vegetation from the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer would occur. All vegetation removal is temporary since the project proposes to establish native vegetation throughout the project area, in all areas subject to removal. The vegetation proposed as part of the restoration is better suited to provide habitat for native wildlife than the existing non- native trees and shrubs. Comment No. B-7 This comment identil led that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would prevent new evergreen trees from re -growing. 14-52 USA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 22 Response to Comment No. B-7 The proposed Project includes a restoration plan that has specific plant species based on the soil conditions of the Project site. Furthermore, based on historical records, the native plant species that were located in the Big Canyon Nature Park in the past did not include evergreen trees. Therefore, re -growing evergreen trees does not meet the objectives of the project to replant native vegetation. Comment No. B-8 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would deprive the existing educational program utilizing the forest to foster adventure, shade and learning experiences for underprivileged children bussed into the area for nature study. Response to Comment No. B-8 This comment expressed an opinion and does not address the contents of the IS/MND. Access to the educational programs would only be restricted during the 5 -month construction period of the project. Access around the site on trails would only be limited to allow construction vehicles to access the proposed construction area. Comment No. B-9 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would take away protection for the indigenous animals from surrounding urban intrusion. Response to Comment No. B-9 This comment identified that the Project would eliminate protection of native animals from surrounding urban intrusion. The non-native pepper trees provide habitat for relatively few local wildlife. Therefore, the removal of the non-native pepper trees and replacement with native trees, shrubs, succulents, and herbaceous species in the near term would not eliminate protection of native animals from surrounding urban intrusion. Native animals as discussed in Section 3.4.4, Biological Resources in the IS/MND largely inhabit surrounding riparian and coastal scrub habitats_ Comment No. B-10 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would interfere with the natural symbiosis between plants and animals existing for decades at the Project site. 14-53 r ESA Ms. Nova, AICP January & 2019 Page 23 Response to Comment No. B-10 This comment identified the relationship of the existing pepper trees and plants and animals. The commenter does not acknowledge that the invasion of non-native pepper trees constitutes an unnatural condition for this area. Native animals and wildlife are not associated with the non-native pepper trees. Comment No. B-11 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would replace beautiful green with ugly. useless brown brush and stunted green desert plants. Response to Comment No. B-11 This comment expressed an opinion regarding the beauty of the proposed vegetation. There are no desert plants proposed to be planted in association with this project. Every plant species selected for planting or seeding occurs in the Upper Newport Bay area. The goal of the project is to implement native habitat rather than supporting existing invasive species that have resulted from urban interference such as irrigation runoff. Comment No. B-12 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would eliminate the scenic beauty of the forest from all directions, including the homes and apartments surrounding the park and individuals walking through the park. Response to Comment No. B-12 This comment expressed an opinion of the scenic view of the Project site and does not comment on the contents of the IS/MND. The City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies protect public views points and do not protect private property views. A discussion of public viewpoints is provided in the Aesthetics section of the IS/MND. Comment No. B-13 This comment identified that removal of the mature pepper trees on the Project site would deplete the oxygen making capacity of the park's habitat because green trees make more oxygen than desert bushes and green trees absorb more carbon dioxide. Response to Comment No. B-13 This comment regarding the cycle of oxygen is correct. The existing green trees on the project site would most likely absorb more carbon dioxide than the proposed native habitats due to a greater surface area of leaves. The 14-54 E SA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 24 decrease in carbon dioxide absorption due to the removal of the existing green trees is not quantifiable, and would represent a negligible decrease. Comment No. B-14 This comment disagreed with the finding that the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Response to Comment No. B-14 As discussed on page 44 of the IS/MND, in determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies refers to information compiled by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State's inventory of forest lands, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project. Forest lands refer to productive land for timber; and therefore, the Project site is not identified as forest land because it is not used for producing timber. Comment No. B-15 This comment refers to the current environmental conditions of Phase 1 after the construction activities were completed. The comment provided an opinion that the evergreen trees (i.e., the non-native pepper trees) should remain and not be replaced with native vegetation. Response to Comment No. B-15 This comment expresses an opinion and does not provide a specific comment on the contents of the IS/MND. There are a number of objectives of the Project as listed on Page 18 of the IS/MND. The primary purpose is to restore the Big Canyon Nature Park by removing the exotic and invasive plants and create a mosaic of ecologically appropriate natural coastal habitats as well as restoring the creek The existing pepper trees are non- native and do not provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species. Comment No. B-16 This comment states that the removal of the pepper trees is proposed because the trees are infested with the PSHB. It suggests thinning out the pepper tree grove rather than removing it. Response to Comment No. B-16 The removal of the pepper trees is proposed because the trees are considered invasive and are non-native. The trees that are infested with the PSHB are willow trees that are located within the mixed arroyo willow/pepper tree grove. There are a number of objectives of the proposed Project as listed on page 18 of the IS/MND. The primary purpose is to restore the Big Canyon Nature Park by removing the exotic and invasive plants and create a mosaic 14-55 ESA -14 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 25 of ecologically appropriate natural coastal habitats as well as restoring the creek. The existing pepper trees are non-native and do not provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species. Some of the native arroyo willows trees are currently infested with PSHB and are proposed to be removed to reduce the spread of infestation. The infested willow trees as well as the pepper trees are proposed to be selectively removed so that the healthy arroyo willow trees can remain. Comment No. B-17 This comment requests that a fence be constructed along the fire road around Big Canyon Creek area to prevent people from falling over the cliff. Response to Comment No. B-17 As stated in Response to Comment No. A-2 above, there is currently no fencing along the existing fire roads which are trails around the Big Canyon Creek area. Signs along the trails will be included to direct visitors to remain on the trails and out of the habitat restoration area. Fencing is not initially proposed because the proposed vegetation will be dense and will discourage trespassing. In addition, the removal of the pepper trees would increase visibility to the project area and would discourage nefarious activities that currently occur within the pepper tree grove area. The suggested fencing at the fire access road "T" does not occur within the Phase 2A area. This "T" location is within the Phase 1 project area. If the City determines a need to install fencing for safety or to prevent the formation of illegal trails into the habitat restoration area, the project would include posts and wire fencing in locations identified on Figure 14 in the IS/MND, as amended in the Errata and illustrated on a new Figure 15 in the IS/MND, as added in the Errata. Comment No. B-18 This comment requested that the existing parking lot off of Back Bay Drive be chained off at night. Response to Comment No. B-18 The Back Bay Drive parking lot is not located on the Project site, and the Project does not include modifications to the operation of the existing parking lot. As stated in Response to Comment A-4, there will be a recommendation by City staff to modify the park hours restrictions by stating "No Use of Park Between Dusk and Dawn" and eliminate the current restriction which is "No Use of Park Between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM. However, this restriction would only apply to the Big Canyon Nature Park and not the Back Bay. The recommendation is not part of the proposed project and would require an ordinance approved by the City Council. 14-56 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 26 Comment No. B-19 This comment states that the construction of the Project would denude the land because hydrologic forces would remove smaller plantings and that there would be no guarantee that the restoration efforts would prevent erosion from flood waters. Response to Comment No. B-19 As described in the IS/MND, the proposed Project includes the re -contouring of the creek and flood area as well as provide stabilization of the creek channel. These efforts will reduce the potential for erosion during flood events. Comment No. B-20 This comment states that the proposed construction activities will substantially increase noise levels during the approximately five months of construction activities. Response to Comment No. B-20 The comment is correct. Construction activities for the Project will increase noise levels at the nearby residences; however, as stated on page 122 of the ISIMND, construction activities would comply with the current City noise ordinance which limits construction hours between 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on any weekdays and between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm on any Saturday. All construction work would be prohibited on any Sunday or federal holiday. Although construction noise levels would be less than significant, noise reduction devices and techniques are recommended as mitigation measures to reduce construction noise as discussed on pages 126 and 127 of the IS/MND. Comment No. B-21 This comment raises a concern regarding the increase of air emissions and surface water pollution during construction activities. Response to Comment No. B-21 Construction air emissions are discussed on pages 58 through 60 of the IS/MND and determined that the Project would not exceed the construction air quality significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Project includes a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP) that would reduce water quality effects during construction activities of the Project. The CPPP includes a diversion of water if there is flow in the channel. This diversion would allow grading activities to occur within the area of the previous active channel. 14-57 LSA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 27 Comment No. B-22 This comment raises a safety concern regarding the use of Back Bay Drive by workers, vendors, trucks, and equipment to access the park because Back Bay Drive as a multi -use trail. Response to Comment No. B-22 As discussed on page 136 of the IS/MND, construction vehicles such as the haul trucks as well as construction employees, vendors and equipment, would use Back Bay Drive. As noted in the comment, the current speed limit on Back Bay Drive is 15 miles per hour. All vehicles associated with construction activities of the Project would limit their speeds to 15 miles per hour. Construction employees and haul truck drivers would be advised of the haul route and staging locations prior to commencing the construction activities. Information would be provided that identifies access to the site includes vehicles travelling north on Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road and access from the Project site includes vehicles travelling north on Back Bay Drive to East Bluff Drive. Pages 134 and 135 of the IS/MND identified peak hour traffic associated with the Project would include about 24 one-way trips by employees during the peak hour while during the non -peak hour which is when haul truck would operate, a maximum of 26 one-way trips over 6 hours during the non -peak hours each day would occur. This would result in a maximum average of 4 to 6 one-way trips per hour. Because the speed limit on Back Bay Drive is 15 miles per hour, less than significant traffic safety impacts would occur. Comment No. B-23 The comment identified that animals in the Project area would be impacted during construction activities. Response to Comment No. B-23 Pages 67 through 71, provided an evaluation of the potential impacts on plant and wildlife species during construction activities. As discussed, potential impacts to special -status plant, nesting birds and special -status bats were found to be potentially significant. Mitigation measures BIO -1 through BIO -3 are provided to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. Comment No. B-24 This comment identified the potential for Native American artifacts within the Project area and that the construction activities could impact them. Response to Comment No. B-24 As discussed on pages 83 through 85 of the IS/MND, there is a potential for construction activities to impact currently unknown historical and archaeological resources. Mitigation measures CR -1 (Archaeological Monitoring) and CR -2 (Native American Monitoring) have been included to reduce the potential impacts to 14-58 Ms. Nova, AICD January 8, 2019 Page 28 unknown historical and archaeological resources to less than significant. This is also analyzed in detail in Appendix D, Cultural Resources Study/Archaeological Research Plan of the IS/MND. 14-59 PubhcWorks Integrity, Accountability, Service, Truat Shane L Silsby, Director October 4, 2018 NCL -18-052 Makana Nova, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 1-B Newport Beach, CA 92658-89I5 Comment Letter C Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration ---Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Dear Ms. Makana Nova: The County of Orange has reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declination for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project and has no comments at this time. We would like to be advised of further developments on the project. Please continue to keep us on the distribution list for future notifications related to the project. C--1 If you have any questions, please contact Cindy Salazar in Development Services at (714) 667- 8870. S' cerely, chard Vuong, Manager, PIanning Division OC Public Warks Service Area/OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Richard.Vuong@ocpw.ocgov_com 300 H. Flower Steel, Santa Ana, CA 92703 P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 www.ocpublimorks.com 714.667.8800 ; Info®OCPW.ocgov,com 14-60 ES'A Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 30 Comment No. C-1 This comment stated that the County of Orange has no comments on the IS/MND and requests that they receive future notifications related to the Project. Response to Comment No. C-1 The City acknowledges this comment from the County of Orange. 14-61 Comment Letter D From: rbolds(a pacbell.net Date: September 25, 2018 at 4:03:19 PM PDT To: mnovanewportbeach.gov Subject: Big Canyon Restoration -Phase 2A Following comment submitted regarding subject project. The location of the project, as stated, is not accurate. The Northern boundary of Project 2A does not abut Amigos Way, but does encompass Vista Bonita and Vista Caudal, which together comprise the vast majority of the Northern boundary of the entire restoration D-1 project. Recommend the project location information be changed to properly reflect the streets along the Northern boundary. Sincerely, Robert B.Oids 641 Vista Bonita Newport Beach, CA 92660 14-62 USA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 32 Comment No. D-1 The comment states that the description of the project location was not accurate because the northern boundary of the Project site does not abut Amigos Way. The comment suggests that describing the northerly project boundary as Vista Bonita and Vista Caudal. Response to Comment No. D-1 This comment was provided on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (NOI). The NOI was providing a general description of the location of the proposed Project. The Project location within the 151MND provided a detailed description of the location, and Figure 2 illustrated the streets that are located north of the Project site. These streets included Amigos Way, Domingo Drive, and Vista Bonita. The reference to Vista Caudal in this comment as being located north of the Project site is not accurate. Vista Caudal is located north of future Phase 2C area. City staff has responded to this commenter and provided a vicinity map of the project location. After seeing the vicinity map, City staff and the commenter have mutually agreed that Vista Bonita and Amigos Way best describe the northerly project boundary. 14-63 Comment Letter E September 26, 2018 Voicemail Recording Approximately 2 minutes and 41 seconds long Citizen of Newport Beach This is a message from a City of Newport Beach citizen representing others living around Big Canyon Nature Park. The commenter states that the City should implement a fence around the Big Canyon Creek because there is graffiti and trash around the area, and this is disrespectful to nature. The Park/Creek area looks like it is a disaster. A fence would keep the public out and stop the graffiti, littering, decrease the chance of fires starting in the area, and prohibit the use of drugs and other substances in the Park/Creek area. The commenter recommends that if theCity wants to use the area for educational purposes, then they have someone open the gate for the group/educational entity, then close it after they are done. The commenter expresses extreme concern over these issues and states that it is unacceptable what is currently happening in the Park. The commenter clearly states that a new fence would keep people out and decrease these existing issues. E-1 14-64 ESA Ms. Nova, AICD January 8, 2019 Page 34 Comment No. E-1 This comment requested fencing to be included in the proposed Project and located around the entire Project site. Response to Comment No. E-1 As stated in Response to Comment No. A-2 above, there is currently no fencing along the existing trails around the Big Canyon Creek area. Signs along the trails will be included to direct visitors to remain on the trails and out of the habitat restoration area. Temporary fencing would be provided around the Phase 2A project area as shown in Figure 14 and illustrated in Figure 15. The project does not include the installation of long-term (operational) fencing because the proposed vegetation will be dense and will discourage trespassing. However, if the City determines a need to install fencing for safety or to prevent the formation of illegal trails into the habitat restoration area, the project would include posts and wire fencing in locations identified on Figure 14 in the IS/MND, as amended in the Errata and illustrated on a new Figure 15 in the IS/MND, as added in the Errata. 14-65 Comment Letter F State of California — Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor�,:. �DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director `— _ South Coast Region x 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858)467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov October 4, 2018 Ms. Makana Nova City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 1-B Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Mnova@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2A, Newport Beach, CA (SCH# 2018081098) Dear Ms. Nova: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project - Phase 2A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), dated August 4, 20183hank you for granting the Department request to submit late comments. The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQAj, Guidelines §15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 of seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning program (NCCP). The City of Newport Beach (City) and the County of Orange (County) are participating landowners under the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCPIHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Additionally, the Department owns and manages the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Collectively, Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project endeavors to restore the undeveloped parcels of the watershed, remove dominant invasive species, improve water quality, and increase habitat value; the Department commented on the draft MND for Phases 1A and 1 B in a letter dated April 4, 2016. Phase 2A of the project, analyzed in the draft MND, involves the restoration of at least 9.2 acres of Big Canyon Creek, including alkali wet meadow, dry meadow, and arroyo willow scrub habitats. The project is located on an 11.32 -acre parcel within the eastern portion of the 60 -acre Big Canyon Nature Park, east of Upper Newport Bay, west of Jamboree Road, in the City. Big Canyon is the only natural, undeveloped portion of the Big Canyon Watershed and the only significant remaining natural canyon on the east side of Newport Bay. Directly downstream of the project area, the lower 15 -acre portion of Big Canyon Nature Park is owned by the Department and is a part of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Big Canyon Nature Park is located in the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area and is part of southern California's coastal estuarine environment. In addition, Newport Bay discharges adjacent to the Newport Coast Area of Special Biological Significance. Conseroing California's Wildffe Since 1870 F-1 14-66 Comment Letter F Ms. Makana Nova City of Newport Beach Planning Division October 4, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Our primary concern regarding the proposed project is appropriate disposal of cleared vegetation and management of the spread of invasive Polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers (collectively, ISHBs). We offer the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. The Biological Technical Report (Appendix C) states that, "the proposed project will use pest management techniques in consultation with experts from the University of California Riverside" (page 8); however, the draft MND states that, "project implementation would result in the need for disposal of vegetative debris from construction and maintenance activities" at Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano" (pages 140-141). Currently, this facility does not have the US Composting Council's Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) as recommended by Dr. Eskalen's lab at the University of Riverside(http://eskalenlab.ucr.edu/pshb.html). The Department, therefore, recommends consideration of a disposal facility that meets this criteria. More information can be found at https://compostingcouncil.org/seal-of-testing-assurance/. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the MND for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. The Department requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of the forthcoming hearing date for the project (CEQA Guidelines; §15073(e)). If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Jennifer Turner, Environmental Scientist at (858) 467-2717 or via email at jennifer.turner@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Gail K. Sevrens Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region ec: Christine Medak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) F-1 14-67 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 3 7 Comment No. F-1 This comment expressed a concern that the Prima Deshecha Landfill located in San Juan Capistrano does not have a U.S. Composting Council's Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) for the treatment of the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB) that has infected individual willow trees and branches on the project site. Response to Comment No. F-1 As discussed on page 27 of the IS/MND, a portion of the 800 cubic yards of chip material is anticipated to be infested by the PSHB. Only the potential infested wood chips which are anticipated to come from some of the onsite willow trees would be treated through solarization at locations along the existing trail that are illustrated on Page 6 of the 60% Design Plans in Appendix A of the IS/MND. The remaining wood chips that are not infested as well as the dead and non-native vegetation would be disposed of at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. .: South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: mnovagnewportbeachca.gov Makana Nova, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Comment Letter G October S, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Bist Canvon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Proiect The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the final CEQA Document. SCAQMD Staff s Summary of Project Description The lead agency proposes the restoration of the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat through removal of non-native plants, replanting of native plants, enhancing public access, and stabilizing the creek and floodplain with erosion control measures, on 11.3 acres (proposed project).' The proposed project is located at 1900 Back Bay Drive, south of the State Route 55 and State Route 73 (SR -73) interchange. SCAQMD Staffs Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the air quality analysis, the lead agency quantified emissions resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project and compared those emissions to SCAQMD's air quality CEQA significance thresholds. Upon review of the air quality analysis, SCAQMD staff found multiple inconsistencies between the MND and the CalEEMod output file. For example, the lead agency quantified emission reductions resulting from mitigation measures input into CalEEMod' but SCAQMD staff found that no mitigation measures or project design features were identified in the MND. Detailed comments are provided below. General Comments Based on the CaIEEMod output file, the lead agency relied on mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project's NOx emissions during construction from 169 pounds per day to 63 pounds per day. However, in the MND, the lead agency only reports the proposed project's mitigated construction emissions value of 63 pounds per day' of NOx and does not include the mitigation measures that are identified in the CalEEMod output file that reduce the proposed project's construction emissions to this less than significant level. Therefore. SCAQMD staff recommends the lead agency revise the air quality analysis to include both unmitigated and mitigated emissions resulting from the proposed project. �x Additionally, the lead agency states in the MND that the construction phase of the proposed project will occur over a five month period, however, based on the CalEEMod output file' the construction period is nine months. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends the lead agency clarify which construction schedule G-2 is more accurate and incorporate this clarification in the final CEQA document. ' NIND. Page 1. 2 MND. Appendix B. Air Quality Modeling, CaIEEMod OutpuL Winter Run, 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data, Page 1 of 49. a MND. Table 7, Page 64 d MND. Appendix B, Air Quality Modeling, CalEEMod Output, Winter Run, 3.0 Construction Detail, Page 13 of 49. 14-69 Makana Nova -2- Comment Letter G October 5, 2018 Recommended Mitigation Measures The lead agency included Tier 4 off road -construction equipment in the CalEEMod file but did not include it in the MND. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends the lead agency incorporate AQ -1(a) to ensure tier 4 standards are met, and AQ -2(b) to further reduce emissions resulting from on -road trucks during all construction phases of the proposed project in the MND. Details regarding these recommended mitigation measures are provided below. AQ -1 Construction equipment maintenance records (including the emission control tier and/or the engine emission standard of each equipment) shall be kept on site during construction and shall be available for inspection by the lead agency. a) Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off-road emissions standards. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification shall be available for inspection by the lead agency at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. b) All on -road diesel haul trucks used during the construction phase shall meet or exceed 2010 eine emission standards specified in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.5, Chapter 1, Section 2025 or be powered by natural was, electricity, or other diesel alternative. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards. Permits and Compliance with SCAQMD Rules In the event that the proposed project requires a permit from the SCAQMD, the SCAQMD should be identified as a responsible agency for the proposed project. For more information on permits, please visit SCAQMD webpage at: http://www.agmd.p-ov/home/permits. Questions on permits can be directed to SCAQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385. Conclusion Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the final CEQA Document. The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Robert Dalbeck, Assistant Air Quality Specialist - CEQA IGR Section, at (909) 396-2139, if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, vRged �F i Daniel Garcia Program Supervisor Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources DG/RD ORC 180904-05 Control Number G-3 14-70 r LS1k J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 40 Comment No. G-1 The comment provided an overview of the project and states that the air quality evaluation relied on mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project's NOx emissions during construction from 169 pounds per day to 63 pounds per day. Response to Comment No. G-1 Appendix B of the ISIMND includes the assumptions and air quality modeling that were used for the proposed project. Various construction phasing scenarios were evaluated because some of the phases of construction were assumed to be overlapped with other phases of construction. CaIEEMod assumes a different fleet mix based on the year of construction activities because as the years progress older, more inefficient equipment is replaced by newer equipment, and therefore, the average fleet emissions profile is somewhat reduced. Because this project is anticipated to span both 2019 and 2020 (construction starting in October of 2019 and ending in 2020), CaIEEMod would assume a different construction fleet and different emissions profile for the two construction years. In reality, unless a piece of equipment breaks down, it is unlikely that there will be an equipment change between the beginning of project construction and the end of project construction. Therefore, the modeling was designed to ensure that the emissions profile for the construction fleet would be consistent with the 2019 construction fleet regardless of when that portion of construction actually began. Specifically, each phase is modeled as if it would begin in October of 2019. When in reality the later phases would not begin until 2020. This being said, the timeline shown in the CaIEEMod model is not the actual timeline of project construction. Based on every phase being input in CaIEEMod as starting in October, the model assumes that every phase would be occurring at the same time, and therefore, the totals presented in the summary tables of the CaIEEMod model sum the emissions of all phases and overestimate the peak daily emissions from the project. Therefore, the summary table provided at the beginning of the CaIEEMod output was not intended to be used for the emissions estimate. Instead, the unmitigated emissions for each phase were pulled from the CaIEEMod model and were then combined based on the actual phase overlaps, as provided in Appendix B of the IS/MND beginning on page 10 of the PDFed appendix. Once the actual construction schedule is accounted for and the phases overlapped as anticipated, the maximum unmitigated emissions are 61.14 lbs per day for NOx. Because the unmitigated emissions do not exceed the daily SCAQMD thresholds, no mitigation was applied to the project. For expediency in modeling, a potential mitigated scenario is incorporated such that if the unmitigated emissions exceeded the thresholds, mitigation could be incorporated and another round of modeling would not need to be incorporated. Additionally, the CaIEEMod model does not incorporate SCAQMD Rule 403 reductions in the unmitigated calculations, and therefore, fugitive dust emissions are pulled from the "mitigated" CaIEEMod outputs to adequately report fugitive dust emissions even though SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance is not mitigation. Therefore, while CaIEEMod shows a mitigation scenario, the mitigation was not necessary for the project and the MND findings are based on the anticipated unmitigated emissions summaries. 14-71 r ESA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 41 Comment No. G-2 This comment states that the CalEEMod model used a nine-month construction schedule and not the proposed five-month construction schedule to determine the amount of emissions that would be generated. Response to Comment No. G-2 The comment refers to a table that identifies the length of construction of each phase. As identified on pages 59 and 60 of the IS/MND, the specific phases that would overlap were described. The table within the CalEEMod model on page 13 of 49 of Appendix B provides the number of construction days for each phase. Each phase with its respective construction equipment was modeled separately and then each phase within their respective overlap was added to the other phases within the overlap. This calculation determined the maximum daily emissions for each overlap as identified in Table 7 on page 60 of the IS/MND. Note that Phase 5 is only 42 days long as identified in the CalEEMod Construction phase. However, once the number of days was set to 42, the model did not auto adjust the end date of the project to limit it to the 42 days, it still shows a construction date through July of 2020 (which would have been the end date of that phase based on the default construction scenario identified by CalEEMod). While this date is inconsistent with the end date of the actual anticipated project schedule, it does not change the peak daily emissions reported for that phase as peak daily emissions are determined by the amount of equipment used on site and that would not change on a day to day basis as there are no vendor or haul trips associated with this phase. Therefore, while CaIEEMod may show a 9 -month schedule, it is an error on the part of the model's not adjusting to the actual 42 -day construction schedule as identified in the inputs and does not reflect the actual project phasing. As a result, the maximum emissions identified on Table 7 on page 60 of the IS/MND are accurate. Comment No. G-3 The comment suggests that the lead agency included Tier 4 off-road construction equipment to reduce emissions but did not incorporate it into the MND. Therefore, the comment suggested that mitigation measures AQ -1 as identified in the comment letter be included in the MND. Response to Comment No. G-3 As detailed in Response to Comment 1, the construction schedule modeled in CalEEMod shows all phases starting in October 2019 in order to ensure a conservative construction fleet was analyzed throughout the project. This results in CalEEMod assuming that all phases will overlap, and therefore, overestimates the peak daily emissions as presented in the CalEEMod summary tables. In reality, the phases do not all occur at the same time, and therefore. when you take into account the actual phase overlaps that will occur, the peak unmitigated emissions for all criteria pollutants are below the SCAQMD regulatory thresholds, and no mitigation is required for the project. The CaIEEMod output shows a mitigated scenario for two reasons. For fugitive dust emissions, the most expedient way to incorporate Rule 403 is by using the mitigation available in CalEEMod. Secondly, as an expedient way to model potential project impacts, the analyst included the potential for Tier 4 equipment to be 14-72 r ESA Ms. Nova, A1CP January 8, 2019 Page 42 used if unmitigated emissions exceeded regulatory thresholds. As detailed in Appendix B of the 1S/ 4ND, starting on page 10 of the PDFed file, the unmitigated emissions do not exceed regulatory thresholds when the emissions from actual phase overlaps are combined. Therefore, while the CalEEMod output shows a mitigated scenario, only the fugitive dust emissions from the mitigated scenario were used and that was to incorporate compliance with Rule 403 which, is not technically mitigation, but a regulation. 14-73 Comment Letter H n!` STATE OF CALIFORNIA'' �T +.. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLAN I A -6p RESEARCH COMMt1NRY �.\rte a "�UF DEVELOPMENT CAUfOPt EDMUND G. BROWN JR. KEN JLLEx GovEimoR OCT o s 2018 DteEcroR October 2, 2018 CITY OF Agt.WpORT Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation - Phase 2A SCH#: 2018081098 Dear Makana Nova: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on October 1, 2018, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. H-1 Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, S ott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 1-916-322.2318 FAX 1-916-558-3184 �""v.opr.ca.gov 14-74 Comment Letter H Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2018081098 Project Title Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation - Phase 2A Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description A coastal development permit and mitigated negative declaration for the Phase 2A habitat restoration at an 11.3 -acre site located at the mouth of Big Canyon. The city of Newport and the Newport Bay Conservancy propose to restore historic riparian habitat by removing non-native vegetation and replanting native species, creating a mosaic of native and sustainable habitats, stabilizing the creek and floodplain with erosion control measures, and enhancing public access and education within the Big Canyon Nature Park with improved trails and closure of illegal trails. The project also includes maintenance of the restored habitat area and erosion quality measures to ensure that the plants are established and erosion features function as designed. Lead Agency Contact Name Makana Nova Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949)644-3249 Fax email Address 100 Civic Center Dr City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92660 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Lat / Long 33° 37'49" N 1117* 52'49."W Cross Streets Back Bay Dr, Amigos Way, Jamboree Rd, and Park Newport Dr Parcel No. 440-092-79 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Back Bay Schools Our Lady Queen of An Land Use passive park/OSIOS Project Issues Biological Resources; Vegetation; WetlandlRiparian; Tribal Cultural Resources; Noise Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 08131/2018 Start of Review 08/3112018 End of Review 10/0112018 Nnta- Rlnnkc in data fialric rPci Of frnm incnffiricnt infnrmntinn nrr AH—i hu 1—i ono " 14-75 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 45 Comment No. H-1 The comment acknowledged that the review period for the IS/MND closed and that no state agencies submitted comments by October I, 2018. Response to Comment No. H-1 The comment is noted. No response is required because there are no comments on the contents in the Public Review Draft IS/MND. 14-76 Comment Letter I From: cart cassidy <carlrcassidy@att.net> Sent: November 14, 2018 4:49 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 11-15-18 Public Hearing - Zoning Administrator Attachments: Regional board recent status on ford motor impact on NB residents doc-4-16-09.pdf; Updated draft community fact sheet ford motor property regional board fact sheet(00281926-3).DOC.pdf Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Ms Nova Follow up Completed I left an earlier voice message with you today. Thank you in advance for reading my email and for your work on the Big Canyon Restoration project. I appreciate the alacrity that the Planning Department has proceeded with coastal development permit and mitigated negative declaration for the Phase 2a habitat restoration at an 11.3 -acre site located at the mouth of Big Canyon 1) I have been unable to locate a response to the Public Comment from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the materials for the Hearing. I would suggest that a careful consideration be included with an opportunity for Public Comment to an appropriate response to the SCAQMD in evaluating the proposed acceptance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Project prior to continuing with the LCP permitting process. 14-77 Comment Letter I 2) I have been unable to locate any contact with or response in the Public Comments from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) in the materials for the Hearing. I would suggest that a careful consideration be included with an opportunity for Public Comment to an appropriate response to the Regional Board in evaluating the proposed acceptance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Project prior to continuing with the LCP permitting process. I would suggest that a careful consideration be included with an opportunity for Public Comment to an appropriate response to the Regional Board in evaluating the proposed acceptance of the MND for the Proposed Big Canyon Project prior to continuing with the LCP permitting process. Attached is a background fact sheet showing information regarding the specific interest of the Regional board in the project from the Ford Motor Company and Water Board, as the lead state agency overseeing the environmental investigation and cleanup of impacts associated with the Big Canyon site. 1-2 3) The 11-15-18 Public Hearing specifies Applicant: Newport Bay Conservancy without any documentation of the Conservancy application and how the monitoring will continue into the 1-3 future. 4) There are encumbrances for monitoring wells without any notice to the property owners of the monitoring wells that are not discussed without prior opportunity for Public comment on the 1-4 most salient environmental impact in the ESA initial draft CEQA report. 5) The ESA initial draft CEQA report does not include any discussion of the updated selenium reports and comments from CA Fish and Game from the Project Phase 1. I-5 14-78 Comment Letter I 6) The changes to properly recognize the Big Canyon project as entirely within Coastal Tidelands have not been incorporated into the initial I-6 CEQA study, with mapping and notices to that effect. 7) The project has not been properly noticed with opportunity to provide specific public comment provided by City Charter and Council Resolution by the City parks and Recreation 1-7 Commission and the Water Quality/ coastal Tidelands committee. The ESA CEQA Report as an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include any discussion or opportunity on the above items such that careful consideration of the omitted 1-8 items should be part of submission the State Coastal Commission for approval. I respectfully request that my comments be included in the materials and Public Comment for the record at the 11-15-18 1-9 Zoning Administrator Hearing. 14-79 Comment Letter I State of California California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region October 19, 2018 STAFF REPORT ITEM: 10 SUBJECT: VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AT THE FORMER FORD AERONUTRONICS FACILITY IN NEWPORT BEACH DISCUSSION: The former Ford Aeronutronics facility (Ford) operated from 1957 until 1993 on approximately 98 acres in the city of Newport Beach (see Figure 1). As part of its aerospace operations, Ford utilized chlorinated solvents, including trichloroethylene (TCE). Historical operations at the site resulted in discharges of TCE and other chemicals to the soil and groundwater beneath the site. TCE is a volatile organic compound that can migrate in the vapor phase from soil and groundwater into the indoor air of overlying structures. TCE exposure is now known to raise a number of health effect concerns which include cancer and other diseases, and can also cause health effects in the developing fetus from both acute and chronic exposure. The Ford facility was shut down in 1993. Facility demolition and environmental remediation was conducted through 1996. In 1996, based on information provided to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) from Ford Motor Company, remediation of the Main Area was determined to be complete. In 1997, the Orange County Health Care Agency granted soil closure, with residual contamination left in place at concentrations that conformed with standards for the protection of human health at that time. The environmental oversight responsibilities were transferred to the Regional Board, focusing on continuation of the off-site groundwater assessment and remediation activities. The Site was rezoned from "industrial" to "residential," and the area was redeveloped with single family homes. The former Ford site investigation has been divided into four distinct areas for environmental characterization purposes (see Figure 2), as described below: Main Area — The 90 -acre active operations portion of the former site that consisted of 15 buildings in which Ford conducted research and development, and manufactured electronic controls for missile and guidance systems. Drums were also stored in the Main Area. :M Item 10 Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility Newport Beach Comment Letter I Page 2 • AeroThermal Chemical (ATC) Building — The 8 acres on the southern portion of the former site is where rocket research was conducted, which included the development of liquid and solid propellants, testing and development of rocket motors, and ordinance assembly. The North Area — The impacted groundwater beneath the area located north of the former site. The groundwater plume originates from the Main Area and extends in a northerly direction. The principal contaminant of concern (COC) for the North Area is TCE. • The Big Canyon Arroyo (BCA) Area — The impacted groundwater beneath the area located south of the former site. The groundwater plume originates from the ATC and extends in a southerly direction. The CDCs for the BCA Area include TCE and its "daughter" products, produced during chemical degradation. After completion of the on-site remediation in 1996, Regional Board staff has performed oversight of the following activities: • Since 1996, groundwater monitoring of the North and BCA Areas has been conducted and is currently occurring on a semi-annual basis. From 2001 through 2004, active remediation was conducted in the BCA Area, which included enhanced in-situ bioremediation downgradient of the ATC Area. In 2006, 2008, and 2012, limited soil gas surveys were conducted, which concluded health risks from vapor intrusion of TCE and other chemicals were not present. This conclusion was based on the screening levels and standards at that time. In 2014, the USEPA published a memorandum regarding TCE acute exposure risk to pregnant women, which defined "accelerated" and "urgent acute" exposure levels for TCE for commercial and residential properties. As a result, the San Francisco Bay Regional Board updated their Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), which Board staff utilize for evaluating risk from impacted soil, soil gas, and groundwater. In 2017, Ford prepared and submitted a conceptual site model (CSM) to evaluate all of the site's historical data in order to compare that data to current ESLs and guidance. The CSM identified the following data gaps: • Potential for groundwater/surface water interaction of Bonita Creek in the North Area and of Big Canyon Creek in the BCA Area. • Delineation of the downgradient extent of the TCE groundwater plume in the North Area. • Evaluation of the North and BCA Areas for potential vapor intrusion of COCs, principally TCE, into the indoor air of the overlying structures, based on the potential for groundwater contaminants to off -gas, and the historical soil gas data. Assessment activities at the former Ford facility are ongoing; most notably, the installation and sampling of soil gas probes and indoor air sampling of commercial and residential properties has taken precedence. Indoor air sampling results have identified TCE in the indoor air above ESLs in a number of homes, resulting in further evaluation 14-81 Item 10 Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility Newport Beach Comment Letter I Page 3 of seven homes, and an interim mitigation measure (installation of air purifiers) in at least one home. Access agreements have been sent to 300 homes and 3 commercial businesses, requesting access to allow Ford's representatives to sample the indoor air. An Open House style public participation event was conducted on September 27, 2018 at the Newport Beach Civic Center, to reach out to the community regarding the recent and ongoing vapor intrusion assessment activities. Regional Board and State Water Board staff, as well as staff from Cal EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the Ford Motor Company, and Ford's technical and public relations consultants were present at the event. Over 70 residents attended the event that evening. In addition to some concerns about short-term and long-term risks to their health, the residents were concerned about possible impacts to their property values as a result of the actual or possible contamination in their neighborhoods. Based on feedback received from the attendees, there will be additional informational meetings to promote the ongoing exchange of information and to provide updates about the activities that are in progress. Staff will keep the Board advised as the project activities continue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is an information item; no action will be taken by the Board. Comment Letter I M 0 a cr o / A RESIDEN77AL / Q 'QOo AREA l �� L Avenue \0, f O cc o' % Ix RESIDENnAL AREA % vl o a. / e4i/ fJg O4Gfo / � 41y 7S hg 94�y/i`P 49 9 9r F G'id� �i4 �4r�4��°r 9479 1 % 9 aln9 9 y°9 1 MAIN j b F AREA a / 1 ceiiGo/ e&iO'n9e�i / v cr 0 Im qa0 49 9 RESIDFNnAL ,� -✓ cf AREA�,� General Purpose RESIDEMML Q Z Building AREA U W _ p I` �•� Missile Valve C Test Cells Plating Laboratory 1 m Liquid Organics Building co - Bu. ATC Propellant Laboratory } AREA o z ti Ap , as NOTE: ALL FORMER FORD FACILITY STRUCTURES t REMOVED AS OF DECE?ABER 31, 1995. n CY m I O /W GERAGHTY FIGURE & MILLER, INC. SITE PLAN AW Envim7tmenlal Seruices 1 FORMFR FORD AERONUTRONIC FACILITY 0 500 FT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 14-83 n Big Canyon /Arroyo �°F Nil 3 /f{ PZ -1 , O\/ Of n PZ 2 vV5 .a• - P-49 P-16 P -08j; -- MAI Former c 7'IWVV-3 PZ•3` .��_t4 ATC Area 1 15 PZ -7 j Iw-2PZ-0` Iyy7 '� 3 3 r \2�w�AR.—m ;�.,se„�n q,_- `i. •':ate' <.» ca Explanation - Monitoring well or piezometer Former IRZ injection piezometer — Creek (current) - — — Creek (former) Creek dashed with quenes where inferred r-- Former Armyo (1931 USGS topographic map) 1 Former faalily boundary LApproximate investigation areas Location of former facility buildings Former ATC area Water Features dy 1 ,CDC rrME=Feet INVESTIGATION AREAS AND EXISTING WELL NETWORK Former Ford Aeronutronic Property Newport Beath, Caliiornia Base rnap Pram NAIP. Orange county, CA, dated 2009. I pate: 07/2512017 I Project No.6615397106.02.28 rtmec foster wheejer Figure 2 14-84 Comment Letter l Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and Ford Motor Company , , - - , - �,�O Water Boards Community Fact Shoot No. 2 Environmental Investigation - Farmer Ford Aeronutronics Site, Newport Beach, CA Why am I receiving this? The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) and Ford For more information, please Motor Company (Ford) are distributing this fact sheet to provide information on Ford's ongoing contact: environmental investigation in the area of the former Ford Aeronutronics property at 1000 Ford Road in Newport Beach (site). The Water Board is the lead state agency overseeing the environmental Ford Project Information Hotline investigation and cleanup of impacts associated with this site. You are receiving this fact sheet because (833) 949-3673 you reside, work, or own property near the site. Ford Project Website www.FordNBFacts.com What environmental work has been completed? Ford recently conducted environmental investigations to determine the extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), specifically trichloroethene (TCE) and Jessica Law tetra chloroethene (PCE), in soil vapor (tiny air pockets between soil grains) in public rights -of way and Santa Ana Regional Water common areas is neighborhoods surrounding the former facility. Using data gathered from these Quality Control Board investigations, additional areas will be investigated this fall (see map showing investigation areas on the (951)782-4381 lessica.law@waterboards.ca.gov back page of this fact sheet or visit the project website). 14-85 What are TLE and PCE? TCE is a chemical compound that was commonly used as an industrial solvent Volatile organic compounds and metal degreaser in the manufacturing industry. PCE is a chemical compound that was commonly (VOCs) associated with past used in clothes dry cleaning and metal degreasing. TCE and PCE are among a group of chemicals called SITE HISTORY chlorinated solvents, which evaporate easily, are highly stable, and nonflammable at room temperature. The former Ford Due to its widespread use, very low levels of TCE are common in the air of homes and businesses and in Aeronutronics facility outdoor air in urban areas. occupied the property at are designed to provide long-term protection of the health of adults and children and the site does not 1000 Ford Road, Newport Under certain conditions, VOCs, including TCE and PCE, can move through soil and the foundations of Beach, from 1957 to 1993. buildings and accumulate inside buildings, negatively impacting air quality. This process is called vapor Its primary operation intrusion. consisted of aerospace and Reports: The results of this investigation and documents containing site history and details about the electronic research, Is my drinking water safe to drink? Yes. Your water is provided by the City of Newport Beach Public development, and Works Department and meets state and federal standards for quality. production. Upcoming Investigation Activities - This fall, Ford will be conducting the following environmental Ford has been working investigation work. All work is reviewed and approved by the Water Board. voluntarily under regulatory Soil Gas Investigation: A crew of 5 to 6 individuals will be collecting samples of soil gas in public rights - oversight since early 1990s of -way to determine the extent of TCE and PCE vapors in soil. New areas where samples will be collected to address environmental impacts associated with the are shown on the map on the back page of this fact sheet. Data collected will be used to determine if previous operations. further investigation is needed. 14-85 Vapor Intrusion Investigation: Ford is requesting access to select homes and businesses within the study Volatile organic compounds area, shown on the back of this fact sheet, to test indoor air and beneath building foundations for VOCs. (VOCs) associated with past Sample results will be compared against the Water Board's established environmental screening levels operations are In soil, soil (ESLs) for indoor air quality. The Water Board's ESLs are very conservative allowing us to proactively take vapor and groundwater on- actions to improve the quality of indoor air, if needed. Test results will be shared with property owners and off-site. On-site assessment and remediation and further actions, if necessary, will be agreed upon based on results. It is important to note, that ESLs was completed in 1997 and are designed to provide long-term protection of the health of adults and children and the site does not off-site investigations are present an immediate health or safety risk. ongoing. How long will this work take? — Investigation work is conducted in phases, and this phase of work is anticipated to continue into 2019. Reports: The results of this investigation and documents containing site history and details about the past and planned environmental investigations are available for review at the Water Board office in Riverside and can also be viewed and downloaded online at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=SL188023848 14-85 Comment Letter I Big Canyon Arroyo Area � � I t SGd] S F9oaF _ ! fe•a6F0. 18 200 i 22 E _ k i >��reel 1 1 4 = s¢do I 4. AICA 5 ]6 r 3 ~ n. I 3 Fo.tl Re 1 c / I6 fi«awn❑ - F -. •'' SG -10 �� j �-]2; ` - '- 9C -]l � sG-n !/ q F sGs9 e��6 E F..Aa.'°�ee.�.uan er t9 11 2s 17 ` 9a �.A�.A••ee• — P '`] Ty - 6bb—GGib�']• ='90d} •'99i8� 8 � 15 S ��i.gsrt°R6 j1T \\2� rmn.mm�ml au e>nraen.s a�ecf e.ea 4 '^ u gs+usGa iea�.Pac .ver P. +` E.�a199p, '—`nrq. Cart1'rA M-31989 ro Sei1 Gn Pm3es Bwnd.ry lln.e ' Sip.+nm•W9a•9np/Le wd m.a+Nl 1--rtFIPGnN�/m]a Axe Pncel kbnMr. 9IG CANYON ARAOVO AR=A — t_ n.eexq.9Pn loe M.ey t9-uq Conrw Cona..b «4wn.:rw«arne.maaer 3OQ GAS PiO65 INSTALLATIONS S(av+e ub.e heegn.Intl9lbuMmdh9 uo^tln91 �Fo.mrneG egC:,yancwaYCLbfxa'w.,.l Ct RESIOENTTAL300MAIP SAM'UNIG S -•- Sot gee P4cE.: fxatlm;ps6.9 eFmelr i.shla9oe9+d erclryl �]-Ge.y9n Heu Ga v]+ry.moM4fn FO i,n94 F0A AP'O n,C Pmpe r( Pooloa�tlen 9m vebw ceepn :ee«:mnaevYweern, Newport B9Acfi, CW{fomla 9 r� Psxde FlflPny«E ndov ri4e.�):Inp �F1'9ne'+ar ts. ^irynG�.fa.mery,� -Mm F Nn x515191, n;a tle E L—� � C+9M'on Cumm� R'Aw�ue,m 3: N. u, }}.9.mvIPilHo.a^�Ms•!m wood o.xa9eGau 14-86 Comment Letter i Investigation Areas S.139ONQV 1109Tt.00T pnrm OY,39,3971000,0 ,,,0VI,DONh. a_02.J6,18 Onl7 CS>Auyn Atl_00innui ei wrnpiny_I 90y0°. d e•PrnhLan 5.11 Gee PrOMe r / ♦ � \ \ Soh g.• pro be Wcbon(mpWa 1► I E -d _,W3 d) Sot Wcph Nonh Arca \ a.. probe On ! , % (n1.WVN pbng pendng) a ! 4 Sol q.. probe k -1.n (pe.at:ng fes• j• dCCGlS (Or 021,01e1hgr. ae° f tt rn nlra Uan Lkre, D..h.d Whin In hl d ! �ryw"� 1 R.pgem.ei rcF rpocgnunuptm I! y rn. 2 qi Ga�cmen.�ealal TC£ � a° fi rqn Yn. I q Reeld.nA.i PCE „ ! $can g Lr3 P-poe.d[oder, Sempling An r 21 Fp� Cemcnveia pe pm and '-SGa6 .18'x`" wra-lin, -PON sesldremagprea avopeed T r 1 / Uarnd.ry un.. � � � 1--�NannH.e-_ighOOn �/ / cad° yara / L-,It»anday ��0 1 Fpmel Pooh aoww.y //�/ f / rin' SG -66 513 t JJ ! 4 !'• 1 \♦ / / r ! !Sa -�. T Fpma+ATC ! ! I ! Pawl—,m and 2r.gro1wtSGtieO Appmnmeleeak helnrl�. =i di y ••••••� al �;-!-f►� EHSC-I1 L' - SGa] growtlwawr ppme SG Si SGaI► E5G-11n" �O $ 7 'SO 1 Perm) NarpAerl I. Nwvpod Nall Apadr.rR Ho ext ad ISG -,6 Ftr 9G lag _ Jr 5013 pw 7. Nxwpod NnT Tavrt.bom.e Aesboa.on v f GAL ¢ Ar�0 3. GIly C.." H.e.hrch. Inc A .9 ',S I c47 lvYPla hYOlOn [ 1 [n sc.io 1s~ I 4T - U.S. POM orrice 6 Way sash}0•106 1 F ]- W1 USU-, - N POn2A rwu Pr J Pen My T. lk i I X461, \ g. Lh.hdy D,tOM Ch.rt A Nm.00't Chrla]in S,h 111} 1Q f u \ E / SG•1 Pa \\ °j•uph IhlNuew Tr- SW3 ! a- N USmn9r-Newpo-ll 1 ? + \\ a1 &IK 9. Nowpad NOT 5lnpphq Canva { c - t \ /I S O. Se Y'Uya Pare Hu.+wartera Asabdelkn H�rlara llr =g'�a2 � Cl e \� L / { n.UW-1 Tamm nm.ewrnen AeaodslJw 41,E >< ��•: `r•`� ! 9 IzoPreart.ueaar camn.a+°Y A.woason �4. V �� 11 1'p \ i / 3 I3. o11C F@d Rpetl C ily AssodeLon 5 \ , � 1 A I.Uelcwrt Perk Honxvahpa s,P��pabn nGhB •1p• \ \ ` I :I -.rune CO=,Vont HCPEnY 7.1. II:�a�rtNo MY.+4•�eriMrvcvinm = 5041 i - \ / \ .191 _-, hrl T •if�♦LGag {'�-°�+ 4aa•nv[vn i ! 1 � f \� t vec9ren= 1 8h 6 1 A I yynti mr enc m.wr bPrye. hna 12 [T•rnd .' Pcudnrs�5e1 Cmrrav �, SC -,aa if f 1 1 ' cw•m cru gnx m 1 :r�,r ! 1 I E< SGaI .at wo �a, dr F-0CL tm i,aN 1 i► SG4a 1 '^4115Ga6 r ar43-UQ COLO 33. �u. r 1 i7r / gc4. x 4 m F j 1 S I l\ I Y.Y.orF n.v3P Llnan 41OG 9O6 7,Ya `F I 1 �i+.yea a j j air+. P•r Cr Main Area 1 9C.s9':. 'r'`*+a•.. n, 13 1 �` �• // ry j c`{.}F s� 7 dPr Ir.nNaay or ! 6 1 o v I sca: °y''°rN•rn$ 1 !�\ {_=swa !I a 1 Former Ford \� A.-..trOnic Facility ; 5041 111 •p.N"d� ! \\\ _-��/ � SG -9a 1 0 • SG.°, '•'SGag (;doniel or r ':' I•' SG -89 i ¢ ` T L scao � 14 1 Y / t SGa yF� SGa9A FCGrAm ' SG47U� .3 �'V 22 I:I 5G41 F , ,+a L,an "R Gra^9B CwnH Cx eawd 7000 a'4 SGa2 __ r NORTPI AREA _ 1 - 1 SOI! GAS PROBE INSTALLATIONS SoSGa] r SGaa I RESIDENTIAL & COMM ERCL4L INDOOR AIR SAMPLING { Former Ford Aeronuaonic Property R 1. SG Ve { Nmport Beach, California 0 350 nnnc=3wm= Fest -'Ni ]S A �f DMO R -Nc R61939710 023 �Pqu! w -Ta ry1 WOO -TT Fo•a 0.a V. WI��,D62C118 14-87 Comment Letter i Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main St #500 Riverside, CA 92501 INFORMATION ON FORD NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION INSIDE OPEN HOUSE/INFORMATION SESSION The Water Board will host a drop-in information session to provide project information and answer questions. Date: September 27, 2018 Location: Civic Center Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Time: 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. — drop-in and visit various information stations Refreshments and on-site daycare will be provided If you need special accommodations, please call 833-949-3673, 24 -hours in advance of the event r ESA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8. 2019 Page 58 Comment No. 1-1 The commenter suggested that a response to the comments from the South Coast Air Quality Management District be provided. Response to Comment No. 1-1 Responses to the comments submitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on the Public Review Draft ISIMND are provided in Response to Comments G-1 through G-3, above. Comment No. 1-2 The commenter suggested that a response to the comments from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) be provided. The commenter provided a letter that raised a concern regarding an existing environmental investigation and cleanup of trichloroethylene (TCE) and other chemicals occurring from the Ford Motor Company upstream of the project site. The commenter requested information regarding potential impacts from the cleanup on the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 1-2 The RWQCB was sent a copy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND; however, they did not provide comments on the proposed project. The RWQCB letter dated October 19, 2018 and attached to this comment letter stated that since 1996, groundwater monitoring of the Big Canyon area has been conducted and is currently occurring on a semi-annual basis due to the release of TCE and other chemicals from the Ford Motor Company previously located approximately 0.5 -mile northeast of the Phase 2A area. There are three monitoring wells located along the existing trail as shown in Figure 2 on page 6 of the IS/MND, as amended in the Errata, below. From 2001 through 2004, active remediation was conducted in the Big Canyon Arroyo area (portion of Big Canyon west of Jamboree Road) which included enhanced in-situ bioremediation down gradient of the AeroThermal Chemical Building located at the previous Ford Motor Company site northeast of the Phase 2A area. In 2006, 2008, and 2012, limited soil gas surveys were conducted which concluded health risks from vapor intrusion of TCE and other chemicals were not present. This conclusion was based on the screening levels and standards at that time. In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a memorandum identifying modified exposure levels for TCE for commercial and residential properties. As a result, the RWQCB in San Francisco updated their environmental screening levels for evaluating risk from impacted soil, soil gas, and groundwater. A reassessment of the commercial and residential properties is currently occurring and the three monitoring wells along the trails shown in Figure 2 of the IS/MND, as revised in the Errata, below, will continue to be used to sample groundwater. These wells are not located within the area proposed for vegetation removal and restoration efforts, and therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not impact the existing groundwater wells. r' LSA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 59 Comment No, 1-3 The commenter raised a concern of how the monitoring will continue into the future. Response to Comment No. 1-3 As stated in Response to Comment No. 1-2 above, the three existing groundwater monitoring wells located along the existing trails shown in Figure 2 of the IS/MND, as amended in the Errata below, will continue to be used. These wells are not located within the area proposed for vegetation removal and restoration efforts, and therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not impact the existing groundwater wells. Comment No. 1-4 The commenter expressed a concern that there are encumbrances for monitoring wells without any notices to the property owners. Response to Comment No. 1-4 As stated in Response to Comment No. 1-2 above, the three existing groundwater monitoring wells located along the existing trails shown in Figure 2 of the IS/MND, as amended in the Errata below, will continue to be used. These wells are not located within the area proposed for vegetation removal and restoration efforts, and therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not impact the existing groundwater wells. Notice of the City Council public hearing for adoption of the IS/MND has also been provided to Ford Motor Company, the beneficiary of the encroachment agreement for the monitoring wells. Comment No. 1-5 The commenter raised a concern that the IS/MND did not include a discussion of the updated selenium reports and comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife from Phase 1. Response to Comment No. 1-5 The water quality information from 2018 prepared by Burns and McDonald is included in Appendix F and discussed on page 109 in Section 3.4.9 of the IS/MND. Total selenium was reported to be substantially reduced due to the water quality improvements provided in Phase 1. Response to Comment No. F-1 addresses the comment letter provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife letter dated October 4, 2018. This comment was regarding the PSHB infected wood chips. Comment No. 1-6 The commenter expressed a concern that the IS/MND has not been revised to reflect that the proposed project is within the Coastal Tidelands. 14-90 ESA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 60 Response to Comment No. 1-6 Section 2.8 of the IS/MND has been revised to identify the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as the responsible agency to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed project. The CCC is responsible because the project site is designated as a Tideland Trust area_ Comment No. 1-7 The commenter expressed a concern that the project has not been properly noticed in accordance with the City Charter and Council Resolutions and provided by the City Parks and Recreation Commission and the Water Quality Coastal Tidelands Committee. Response to Comment No. 1-7 The proposed project was presented at the City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission on December 4, 2018. The meeting was properly noticed by City staff. At the meeting, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the proposed park improvements for the Big Canyon park as well as authorized the removal of the pepper trees in accordance with Council Policy G-1. Comment No. 1-8 The commenter expressed a concern that the above items need to be discussed and provided as part of a submission to the California Coastal Commission. Response to Comment No. 1-8 Each of the comments and the responses provided on the Public Review Draft IS/MND will become part of the Final IS/MND. The Final IS/MND will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of the application for a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed project. Comment No. 1-9 The commenter requested that the comments and materials provided be included in the record prior to the November 15. 2018 Zoning Administrator Hearing. Response to Comment No. 1-9 The comments and materials within this Comment Letter I that were provided at the November 15, 2018 Zoning Administrator Hearing is part of the environmental record for the proposed project and will be part of the submittal to the California Coastal Commission. 14-91 Ms. Nava, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 61 ERRATA/REVISIONS The following provides the corrections and additions to the sections of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The corrections and additions are organized by page number. Additional text is shown in underline, and deleted text is shown in stfikethmtigh format. Some of the revisions included herein are based on input received from the commenters during the public review period, and some are City -identified changes. None of these clarifications and revisions reflect a substantial change to the project, nor do they result in a new impact or intensification of an impact already identified in the Draft MND that would require recirculation of the Draft MND in accordance with Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Page 1, ISIMND The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 1 of Chapter 1, Introduction of the IS/MND is revised as follows: Phase 2A is considered a separate project from other identified phases (i.e. Phase 1, Phase 2B, and Phase 2C) bee-axse where specific grant funding was provided to the project applicant, The Newport Bay Conservancy, to provide a restoration design for the 11.32 -acre project site (Phase 2A). Page 6, Figure 2, IS/MND The locations of existing groundwater wells are added to Figure 2. These wells are used to monitor groundwater quality to determine the migration of potential contamination from chlorinated solvents, including trichloroethylene, and other chemicals that were used by the former Ford Aeronutronics facility operated from 1957 to 1993 located approximately 0.5 -mile northwest of the project site. The three groundwater monitoring wells are not located within the area proposed for vegetation removal and restoration efforts, and therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not impact the existing groundwater wells. The legend for Figure 2 is modified to identify the existing groundwater monitoring wells. Page 9, IS/MND The third paragraph is revised to correct a couple of typographical errors. As shown on Figure 2, Phase 2 will be implemented in three sub -phases. The proposed project (Phase 2A) is the next downstream restoration phase that includes restoration of at least 9.2 acres of coastal canyon creek, and alkali wet and dry meadow and riparian habitat (which would includes habitat for the endangered Least Bell's Vireo) within the 1 1.32 -acre Phase 2A site. Restoration of the Phases 2B and 2C areas (Figure 2) will follow implementation of Phase 2A. Newport Bay Conservancy (NBC) is conducting feasibility studies for these future phases and developing alternatives to address water quality and mosquito breeding in the freshwater pond, remove invasive plant species, and improve future tidal transitional zones in these downstream areas. 14-92 Ms. Nava, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 62 Page 10, IS/MND The eighth sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 10 of the IS/MND is revised to correct a typographical error. In the lower canyon within Phases 2B and 2C, there is evidence of the stockpiling of dredged materials on both sides of Back Bay Drive. Page 11, Figure 4, IS/MND The legend for Figure 4 is modified to accurately identify that the Menzies' Golden Scrub Alliance vegetation community is considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and that the Mixed Arroyo Willow/Pepper Tree Grove is not considered an ESHA. In addition, the legend is modified to identify that the existing Freshwater Marsh, Alkali Heath Alliance and Menzies's Goldenbrush Scrub are not proposed to be removed. The legend for Figure 4 is revised as follows: Bare Ground Freshwater Marsh (ESHA) (Not proposed to be removed) Mixed Arroyo WillowlPepper Tree Grove's Pepper Tree Grove Alkali Heath Marsh Alliance (ESHA) (Not proposed to be removed) Menzies' Golden Scrub Alliance (ESHA) (Not proposed to be removed) The revision to the determination of the Mixed Arroyo Willow/Pepper Tree Grove as not an Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) is based on the integrity of the native arroyo willows. The arroyo willow component of the Mixed Arroyo Willow/Pepper Tree Grove vegetation is substantially compromised by the constantly increasing presence of Brazilian pepper trees and other undesirable non-native species. The mixed vegetation encompasses approximately 25 percent of the total project site. As has obviously occurred in most of the Phase 2A area already, the willows and other native vegetation in the area continue to be increasingly displaced (crowded out) by the non-native pepper trees. Page 17, IS/MND Table I on page 17 included asterisks at the end of some of the vegetation communities. These asterisks are hereby removed because the specific discussion of special status vegetation communities are provided in the paragraph below Table 1. The asterisks within Table 1 have been removed. Mixed Arroyo Willow-k/Pepper Tree Grove Alkali Heath Marsh Alliance Menzies's Goldenbush Scrub Alliance=s 14-93 r LSA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 63 Page 17, ISIMND The following correction to the second paragraph on Page 17 of the IS/MND is provided to reflect the revisions of which vegetation communities are and are not Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). As shown in Table I, the project area currently supports five vegetation communities, as well as bare ground and disturbed and developed areas (i.e., unpaved public access areas and dirt trails). These plant communities include: mixed arroyo willow/pepper tree grove, freshwater marsh, alkali heath marsh alliance, Menzies's goldenbush scrub alliance, and pepper tree grove. Of these, three are special -status vegetation communities: mixed ^ ille ,/peppeF *-^^ grevefreshwater marsh, alkali heath marsh alliance, and Menzies' goldenbush scrub alliance (Figure 4). Sensitive plant communities are those considered to support special - status plant and/or wildlife species, or function as corridors for wildlife movement. Although the arroyo willow trees are located within the mixed arroyo willow/pepper tree grove. this mixed vegetation is not considered a sensitive plant community because it is substantially compromised by the constantly increasing presence of Brazilian pepper trees and other undesirable non-native species. As has obviously occurred in most of the Phase 2A area already, the willows and other native vegetation in the area continue to be increasingly displaced (crowded out) by the non-native pepper trees. Page 17, ISIMND The second sentence of the third paragraph is revised to correctly reference the arroyo willows on the project site. The invasion and establishment of invasive trees and understory vegetation has heavily impacted the arroyo willows on the project site. ^ uthem r ; F ffn^* "^"i*^* Page 18, IS/MND The fourth sentence of the first paragraph on page 18 is revised as follows to clarify the habitats illustrated on Figure 4. As shown on Figure 4 and presented in Table 1, the project area also includes alkali marsh and meadow community (Alkali Heath Marsh Alliance) and upland coastal sage scrub habitat (Menzies's Goldenbrush Scrub Alliance). Page 19, ISIMND The second sentence in the second paragraph in Section 2.5.1.1 on page 19 is deleted because it is a duplicate of the first sentence_ Page 21, Figure 11, ISIMND The legend for Figure l 1 is modified to accurately identify the intent of the site clearing and grubbing. 14-94 r E Syk Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 64 Invasive Plant Removal Site Clearing and Grubbing (complete removal including root mass of non -natives and PSHB-infested willows) — 6.83 acres Site Selective Tree Removal (removal of invasive pepper trees, other invasive plant species and PSHB- infested willows) — 2.41 acres Page 28, ISIMND and Appendix C, Page 8 The following correction addresses the comment made by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who addressed the need for clarification of vegetation disposal and information provided in third paragraph on page 28 of the ISIMND and page 8 in Appendix C, The Biological Resources Technical Report: The stream corridor outside of the pepper trees groves is dominated by native willows that exhibited evidence of infestation by the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB) noted during field surveys conducted during Phase 1. The potential infested wood chips from the onsite willow trees would be treated through solarization at locations along the existing trail that are illustrated on Page 6 of the 60% Design Plans in Appendix A. The remaining wood chips as well as the dead and non-native vegetation would be disposed of at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. Subsequent to completing the habitat restoration, tThe proposed project will use long- term pest management techniques in consultation with experts from the University of California Riverside. Such techniques may include heavy pruning of the existing infested mature trees and application of soil amendments and tree injections to improve resilience of existing woody plants. These aFeas also eentain To further improve sustainability of the replanted native riparian vegetation, woody species and herbaceous plants will be selected that are not highly susceptible to PSHB infestation. will be selected Page 33, ISIMND The last sentence of the second paragraph in Section 2.5.5 on page 33 is revised as follows to clarify the proposed fencing on the project site. The project does not includes the installation of ate fencing to keep the public out of sensitive habitats because the vegetation proposed will be dense and would discourage trespassing. However, if the City determines a need to install fencing for safety or to prevent the formation of illegal trails into the habitat restoration area, the project would include posts and wire fencing in locations identified in Figure 14 in this ISIMND and illustrated on Figure 15 in this ISIMND. Page 37, ISIMND The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 37 of the ISIMND is revised to clarify that biologically sensitive areas will be protected with fencing during construction. 14-95 Ms. Nova, AICP January S, 2019 Page 65 Biologically sensitive areas will be protected with fencing prior to construction and periodically monitored. Water quality protection during construction will be monitored based on a pre -construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), to be developed prior to construction. Page 37, ISIMND The following is added to the paragraph under Section 2.7.1 on page 37 of the IS/MND to clarify that construction fencing will be used. Furthermore, the temporary fencing will continue to be located around the project restoration activities during the 120 -day plant establishment period to prevent illegal access. Page 38, ISIMND The following is added at the end of the first paragraph on page 38 of the IS/MND to clarify when operational fencing would be installed. During the long-term maintenance (operational) activities. no fencing is proposed. However_ if the City determines a need to install fencing,for safety or to prevent the formation of illegal trails into the habitat restoration area. the project would include posts and wire fencing, in locations identified on Figure 14 in this IS/MND and illustrated on Figure 15 in this IS/MND. Page 38, ISIMND Section 2.8 on page 38 of the IS/MND is revised to clarify which agency is responsible for the issuance of the Coastal Development Permit. In addition, the City of Newport Beach will need to issue a grading permit for the project. The City of Newport Beach will use the proposed project IS/MND and supporting documentation in its decision to adopt this ISIMND and approve the project. Regulatory Agencies would similarly use the IS/MND and supporting documentation to support additional discretionary actions, including: • City of Newport Beach: Right of Entry Permit • City of Newport Beach: Gradin Pg ermit • California Coastal Commission: Coastal Development Permit • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): 404 Certification • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): Streambed Alteration Agreement • Regional Water Quality Control Board: 401 Certification 14-96 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 66 Although the proposed project is in the City of Newport Beach which has an approved local coastal plan, the project site has been identified as a Tideland Trust property. Tideland Trust properties are considered deferred certification areas in the Local Coastal Prouam and therefore, the California Coastal Commission is the agency who is responsible for the issuance of a coastal development permit for the proposed project. Therefore, after the deliberation and approval of the proposed project by the City of Newport Beach, the proposed 12roiect will be required to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for a determination of issuance of a coastal development permit. Page 39, IS/MND The coastal development permit discretionary actions provided on page 39 of the ISIMND under 1 l . Discretionary Actions is revised to clarify that the California Coastal Commission is the agency responsible for the issuance of a coastal development permit. California Coastal Commission City of Newpei4 Beaeh: Coastal Development Permit Page 42, IS/MND The following correction was required to clarify that the vegetation that is currently infested with the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB) is some of the existing willow trees. The second paragraph on page 42 of the IS/MND is revised as follows: Furthermore, the proposed project includes the removal of the existing Brazilian pepper trees that are approximately 20 to 30 feet in height, non-native and evergreen. ^''hOU-,h theSO 400 SpeeiOS GEMIE ...^,ride visually pleasing view, these speeies aFe infested with 12914B thi34 Will eventually destr-ay the tf The proposed removal of these non-native evergreen species as well as other exotics and invasive species would alter distant views from Back Bay Drive and limited views from Jamboree Road, as well as distant eastern views from the nearest public viewpoint located approximately 600 feet west of the project site within the western portion of Big Canyon Park. Although these current views would be altered. the proposed vegetation would provide views of native habitat that can be visually pleasing. the p-esenee of Feud ;vdl result in the Tze�The proposed restoration of the project site with alkali wet and high meadow communities with vegetation heights of two to three feet would include more sustainable natural plant species. The final project plantings would continue to provide natural and visually pleasing vegetation as viewed from Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road. Although the proposed restoration would alter views from Jamboree Road, Back Bay Drive, as well as the public viewpoint west of the project site, views of the project site would remain aesthetically pleasing and impacts to the scenic quality of the project area would be less than significant. Page 72, IS/MND The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 72 of the ISIMND is revised to correct a typographical error. ef-Temporary access ramps are proposed at two locations and one additional optional location is proposed (shown on Figures 12 and 13, above) to provide equipment access to the project site to remove exotic and invasive vegetation and to implement habitat restoration activities - 14 -97 r ESA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 67 Pages 72 and 73, IS/MND The third paragraph on page 72 and extending to page 73 is revised to clarify the special status species located on the project site. Only tree two special status vegetation communities (mixed „FF.).". Wi!1. ,rPepper- tFee grave, alkali heath marsh alliance; and Menzies' goldenbush scrub alliance) occur within the Phase 2A project area as shown depieted on Figure 4 above, and i.,,tie ted bele, .. i; Table 10 No adverse effects would occur to the alkali heath marsh alliance or to Menzies' goldenbush scrub alliance. In addition, although it is not considered a special -status vegetation community, no adverse effects would occur to the 0.40 acre of freshwater marsh on- site, which is a riparian community. Selective removal of exotic pepper trees and enhancement would occur within 2.41 acres of the total 2.90 acres of mixed arroyo willow/pepper tree grove community on-site. This work would involve tree removal and may also include substantial pruning or removal of native willow trees if they are badly infested with PSHB. Some incidental damage to individual arroyo willow trees na4ive fiat+ -is also anticipated to occur in order to access, prune and remove the individual exotics and infested willows. Page 73, IS/MND Table 10 on page 73 included asterisks at the end of some of the vegetation communities. These asterisks are hereby removed because the specific discussion of special status vegetation communities are provided in the paragraph above Table 10. The following has been revised within Table 10. Mixed Arroyo Willows/Pepper Tree Grove Alkali Heath Marsh Alliance* Menzies's Goldenbush Scrub Alliance* Page 73, IS/MND The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 73 of the IS/MND is revised to clarify the reference to the arroyo willow trees. To minimize adverse effects to native healthv arrovo willow trees ,,,,bti34ia,T within the mixed -arroyo willow/pepper tree grove, work would be done manually or by using small, lightweight machines to the extent feasible: however, as a conservative estimate of potential disturbance to the existing mixed arroyo willow/pepper tree grove community on-site, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that up to a maximum of 2.90 acres would be effected; even though the selective removal would only result in a portion of the 2.90 acres to be entirely affected. Page 74, ISIMND The second paragraph on page 74 of the ISIMND is revised to clarify which existing plant communities are ESHAs, and the project potential impact on these communities. ESA Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 68 Several habitat types identified as ESHAs occur in Big Canyon. Within the Phase 2A area (project site), there are three fet+F ESHAs that include , freshwater marsh, ar�d a version of alkali meadows, and Menzies's Goldenbush Scrub Alliance. These three ESHAs encompass 126 acres of the 11.32 -acre Phase 2A nroiect site. These ESHA habitat areas areThe southe-m y6llp `^r"" Geldeni- ulh Ser -tib Allianee aFe .,i..,, shown in Figure 4. The , AA: ^n,^i: ,, -Ades,,^ : ^t,,.,,,., Alkali Hea4h r,raFsh n liaR e :„ F:,.,,,.,, n. The proposed project does not include direct effects on the freshwater marsh, alkali meadows and Menzies's Goldenbush Scrub Alliance.; however, the projeet will r-esuk in th-e Pages 74 and 75, IS/MND The last paragraph on page 74, which continues on page 75 is revised to clarify that the proposed project would not impact existing onsite ESHAs. The City of Newport Municipal Code section 21.30B.030 provides regulations regarding designating ESHAs, requiring protection, reporting of ESHAs, ESHA buffers, development design and siting adjacent to ESHAs, limiting uses within ESHAs, and required findings. As identified above, there are onsite ESHAs that meet the characteristics identified in the City's municipal code and Coastal Act, The ESHA shall be protected against significant disruption of habitat values. No direct effects to the onsite freshwater marsh. Alkali Heath Marsh Alliance or Menzies's Goldenbush Scrub Alliance ESHAs would occur with the proposed project.TIl+e b itat on the pr-ejeet site and b the inv—asive Braze In pepper- tFee fer-est and eikef invasive plant speeies, A -Ad therefore, would impfeve the habitat values On tile ate- Appendix C of this IS/MND includes a biological resources technical report that addresses the existing onsite plant and wildlife species and the potential effects associated with the proposed project. The Code identifies the need to provide a minimum of a 50 -foot buffer between urban development and ESHAs. The nearest urban development to the project site is approximately 75 to 100 feet from the project site, which meets the buffer requirement. The design and siting requirement refers to new urban development which is not applicable to the proposed project because the proposed project is not introducing new urban development but, rather, restoring the native habitat within Big Canyon by removing the invasive species. The Code identifies that land uses for ESHAs shall include limited public access improvements, minor educational, interpretative and research activities and development, and habitat restoration projects. Because the proposed project includes habitat restoration and public access improvements in the form of interpretive signs and resting areas, the project is considered consistent with the required uses. Finally, the required findings ,are to demonstrate that the existing resources will not be significantly affected. Because the project includes restoring the native habitat on the project site and resulting in no direct effects on the three onsite ESHAs, the project would not ala} affect the ESHA resources on the project site_ The proposed rp oject would improve and enhance the value of the resources on the project site. Page 75, IS/MND The analysis in Table I 1 on pages 75 and 76 of the 1S/MND is modified to accurately identify the onsite ESHAs and the project's potential impact on the ESHAs. 14-99 Ms. Nava, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 69 4.1.1-1. Define any area in which Consistent A. Ripa�aR habitat GORlaining native willows and plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable aster' s4eaF44 leading i^`^ "^^^r Nev4pai4 °ay because of their special nature or role is -se in an ecosystem and which could be idle -Fable , be ^.,,.,r.^.;,^,- as; Gown Gn�ni easily disturbed or degraded by also recognizes••�"F �...ow fa• f^•^stasaa�siti� human activities and developments GqFnFRURity although thi^ n X(3d ^it• M as an environmentally sensitive net he �'� , d^' as ^easifive. ThTec1aF.e, tnom habitat area (ESHA). Using a site- specific survey and analysis by a Phare 24 , ^„la be FSHA, albeit ; a de.,Fa qualified biologist, evaluate the^^i'i'i^^ due to the ^ of ^x^'i^ Brazili^^ following attributes when determining pepper tFee6. The to Gati^^ of the onsite habitats whether a habitat area meets the that a riderad FSHA^ a e dee"Gted in FigUF9 definition of an ESHA: 4 on SeGtion ? ❑ra.�t_PeP6F.ptioR. A. The presence of natural TheOther vegetation types in Phase 2A, including communities that have been identified Menzies' goldenbush scrub (a version of coastal as rare by the California Department sage scrub), alkali heath marsh alliance, and of Fish and Game. freshwater marsh dominated by cattails, are each considered rare or vulnerable or otherwise B. The recorded or potential presence sensitive. These three vegetation communities are of plant or animal species designated ESHAs and are within as rare, threatened, or endangered Phase 2A. However, the planned restoration under State or Federal law. project will not affect these threeethef communities C. The presence or potential within the site. The arroyo willow component of the presence of plant or animal species Mixed Arroyo Willow/Pepper Tree Grove that are not listed under State or vegetation is substantially compromised by the Federal law, but for which there is increasing presence of Brazilian pepper trees and other compelling evidence of rarity, other undesirable non-native species and thus. such as designation as a 1 B or 2 these trees are not classified as ESHA. species by the California Native Plant B. No State or federally -listed species have been Society. identified in D. The presence of coastal streams. tPRe GBnity In Phase 2A -,.Both the white tailed kite (State fully protected species) and the least E. The degree of habitat integrity and Bell's vireo (Federal and State endangered connectivity to other natural areas. species) were observed offsite. but within the study Attributes to be evaluated when area. but ' s GemmyRity may be petentially „if a hi^ 4^r the .nnnl linins vi Fee. determining a habitat's integrity/connectivity include the C. Several special -status plants and animals are habitat's patch size and connectivity, known from the study area, but outside the project dominance by invasive/non-native area. The special status species that have been species, the level of disturbance, the observed in the area (but outside the restoration proximity to development, and the area) include the southern tarplant. California level of fragmentation and isolation. boxthom, orange -throated whiptail, yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat white-tailed kite coastal Existing developed areas and existing California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vieo, Southern fuel modification areas required by California saltmarsh shrew, pallid bat, and San the City of Newport Beach Fire Diego desert woodrat. Department or the Orange County Fire Authority for existing, legal .a ^)< th^m . Apt ; the a nr, arr^r^h re�Other structures do not meet the definition -Ali �} aFnon -listed species may have of ESHA. some potential to occur. D. Big Canyon Creek flows through Phase 2A but does not which flow through existing ESHAs PAs depicted on Figure 4. E. The habitat that would be affected by the planned activity within Phase 2A exhibits poor integrity as it has been overrun by Brazilian pepper trees that have displaced native vegetation and 14-100 ESA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 70 provide only very limited habitat values. The remaining willow trees and native riparian elements are threatened by continued encroachment by this exotic vegetation. The area is connected to Upper Newport Bay but is not considered an important wildlife linkage. There is little natural area upstream on the other side of Jamboree Road other than a golf course which provides open space but limited habitat value for terrestrial wildlife. 4.1.1-2. Require a site-specific survey Consistent A site-specific survey and analysis has been and analysis prepared by a qualified prepared by a qualified biologist. The project biologist as a filing requirement for involves habitat restoration only. No new coastal development permit development is proposed. Severely degraded applications where development habitat Eco^ comprised predominantly of non - would occur within or adjacent to native trees and up to 0.5 acre containing a mix of areas identified as a potential ESHA. native arroyo willow and non - Identify ESHA as habitats or natural native trees will be removed but then completely communities listed in Section 4.1.1 replaced with appropriate mosaic of native that possess any of the attributes vegetation (including special status plant species) listed in Policy 4.1.1-1, The ESA's along a more stable streambed with better depicted on Map 4-1 shall represent a connectivity to the surrounding floodplain. The preliminary mapping of areas location of the existing onsite ESHAs are shown in containing potential ESHA. Figure 4. The planned activity would result in restoration of a robust and diverse habitat area with increased potential to attract and support special status wildlife and plants. 4.1.1-3. Prohibit new development Consistent Project involves habitat restoration only. No new that would necessitate fuel development or other use necessitating fuel modification in ESHA. modification is proposed. 4.1.1-4. Protect ESHAs against any Consistent significant disruption of habitat values. 4.1.1-7. Limit uses within ESHAs to Consistent only those uses that are dependent on such resources. The project site contains three ESHAs (freshwater marsh, Alkali Heath Marsh Alliance and Menzies's Goldenbush Scrub Alliance). These three ESHAs would not be impacted by the proposed restoration activities. A 9.5 aGre area of the ESHA GOM ..ill be nln nrnd and nn.hh nil and nlhnr nrnnn ..,ill hn G-......... (`-....L ..ill nlre he adnd ..1..,,-.,d nd 94h0148d nd th„o „Id he t8R;PGrn,il,. rlin4„rhnrl nnN /ln.,n i .,1� hn Ni. ,nhnrl d„rinn Ihn work. The purpose of the proposed project is to restore and establish an optimal mix of native vegetation types within the disturbed areas surrounding the ESHA habitat and, thus, substantially improve habitat values within these areas. Uses of the Phase 2A site will be restricted to passive recreation and education with public access restricted to the existing trail system. Entry into ESHA areas, including restored habitats, would be restricted to authorized persons through the use of signage, and if needed, operational fencing in ]ocations shown on Figure 14 and illustrated in Figure 15. 14-101 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 71 Page 81, IS/MND In December 2018, the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed project and authorized removal of the Brazilian Pepper trees in accordance with Council Policy G-1 within the Big Canyon Phase 2A. In addition, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the proposed park improvements. The second paragraph on page 81 of the IS/MND is modified as follows to reflect the action taken by the Commission. At the December 4, 2018 Parks. Beaches & Recreation Commission meeting. the Commission authorized removal of the Brazilian Pepper trees in accordance with Council Policy G-1 within the Big Canyon Phase 2A. In addition, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the proposed park improvements. FI -114130-F, the them, and has provided dirtmotiAn Therefore, removal of the Brazilian Pepper trees will not conflict with the policy. Page 112, IS/MND The last paragraph on page 112 of the ISIMND is revised to reflect the action taken by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission at their meeting of December 4, 2018. At the December 4, 2018 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission meeting. the Commission authorized removal of the Brazilian Pepper trees in accordance with Council Policy G-1 within the Big Canyon Phase 2A. In addition the Commission recommended City Council approval of the proposed park improvements. &f Gi�,- 4ee:9. Gity stag deief+Hified tha, he __1 F-Pper �r-ees and other e�Eotie trees within Rig Gafiyen Phase _designated apen space area. has fievef f the does FIE)t e that these trees will not be subject to the Couneil Pokey 9 1. Removal of the existing onsite exotic, invasive Brazilian Pepper trees will not conflict with the policy. Page 126, IS/MND At the end of the second paragraph on page 126 of the ISIMND, the following is revised to address the intended hours of operation for the Big Canyon Park with the implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the applicable permitted hours of operation established under the City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance. In addition, the City intends to change the hours of operation for Big Canvon Park to close from "dusk till dawn," which may require a future ordinance. 14-102 Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 72 Page 141, ISIMND The following text has been revised to address the landfilling of the chipped material from the project site. The second paragraph on page 141 of the IS/MND is revised as follows: Project implementation would result in the need for disposal of vegetative debris from construction and maintenance activities. Solid waste removed from the project site would include dead or nonnative vegetation. Debris would be removed with construction equipment and transported to the landfill by haul trucks at the designated haul routes discussed above in Section 3.4.16, Impacts a) and d). The total estimated vegetation removal is approximately 7,500 cubic yards and the total estimated soil removal is approximately 1,500 cubic yards. It is anticipated that the project's generation of solid waste would be at its greatest during initial construction activities due to the primary removal of non-native habitat vegetation. Thereafter, the project would result in minimal removal of dead vegetation during operational maintenance activities. Chipped material totaling up to approximately 800 cubic yards may be used for top dressing within the replanted area as well as on the trail located along the northern boundary of the project site. A portion of the 800 cubic yards of chip material is anticipated to be infested by the PSHB. Only the potential infested wood chips which are anticipated to come from some of the onsite willow trees would be treated through solarization at locations along the existing trail that are illustrated on Page 6 of the 60% Design Plans in Appendix A. The remaining wood chips that are no infected as well as the dead and non-native vegetation that are also not infected would be disposed of at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. Given the project's scale, it is anticipated that the specified landfill would have the adequate capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to landfill capacity. Page 143, IS/MND The following is a correction to the cumulative discussion on page 143 of the IS/MND. Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project along with other related projects such as Phases 1, 2B and 2C would result in several potentially significant mel cumulative impacts. Impacts associated with the related projects would be similar to the impacts associated with the proposed project. As a result, the cumulative impacts regarding Biological Resources. Cultural Resources and Noise would be significant. Because the proposed project would result in significant impacts associated with these same issues, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Noise would be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, could result in significant cumulative impacts. Appendix D, Page 7 Appendix D, Phase 1 Cultural Resources / Archeological Research Plan, is modified to reflect the correct date for earliest human occupation. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 7 as well as the first sentence of the third paragraph of page 7 of Appendix D in the IS/MND is revised as follows: The prehistory of the region has been summarized within four major horizons or cultural periods: Early [40,000 13,000 to 8,000 before present (B.P.)], Millingstone (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.), Intermediate (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.), and Late Prehistoric (1,500 BY to A.D. 1769) (Wallace 1955; Warren 1968). The southern 14-103 LSA Ms, Nova, AICP January 8, 2019 Page 73 California coast may have been settled as early as 10.000 13,000 years ago (Jenes=.992 Waters and Stafford 2007). Evidence of human occupation as early as 13.000 B.P. was found at the southern California Fairpoint Site located on Point Dume in Malibu, which was validated by the national museum, The Smithsonian (Stanford 2007). Appendix D, Page 8 The first sentence of paragraph five on page 8 of Appendix D. Cultural Resources / Archeological Research Plan is revised as follows: The proposed project is located at the southern extent of Kizh territory, near the boundary with the Juaneno—Acjachemen territory to the south. Appendix D, Pages 8 and 9 Appendix D, Phase 1 Cultural Resources / Archeological Research Plan, is modified to reflect the reference to sources for the mentioned "Ethnographic Setting" on pages 8 through 9 and the reference to Mr. Anthony Salas has been revised as follows: ea. Anthony calls Mr. Chairman Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, provided information on known ethnographic village sin the project vicinity. These include Lukupangna, Lopuuknga, Moyonga (or Moyo), Kengaa, and Kenyaanga (or Kenyaangna), two of which are located new Newport Beach. For reasons of confidentiality, more specific locations are not provided. The Gabrielino-Kizh-Tongva are reported to have been second only to the Chumash in terms of population size and regional influence (Bean and Smith, 1978; Johnston. 1962, McCawley. 1996: Teutimes-Salas et al., 2013). Appendix D, Page 40 The following sources have been added to the References Cited section on page 40 of Appendix D, Phase I Cultural Resources / Archeological Research Plan: Johnston, Bernice. 1962. Califomia Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum Pres. Los Anueles. McCawle . William. 1996. The First An elinos the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki MusuemlBallena Press, Banning, California. Teutimes-Salas. E.A. Salas. C. Swindal]-Martinez and G. Stickel 2013 Toypurnia. the .loan of Arc of California. Kizh Tribal Press. San Gabirel Waters. Michael B. and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. 2007. Redefining-, the Age of Clovis: Implication for the Peopling of the Americas. Science. Vol. 315, pp. 1122-1126. 14-104 r ESA J Ms. Nova, AICP January 8, 2419 Page 74 If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 742-5375. Sincerely, 4Wi&4K__ Michael Houlihan, AICP Principal Associate Attachments — Revised Figures 14-105 M� A'� ,• � ,~ � - TL`s `fi' 1 4W .r .r y�✓ uvul:7� i a,N41,: SDURGESSRI. 0-d.k, ESA ip anyon ssloration- hese Figure 4 Proposed Project (Phase 2A) r ESA Existing Vegetation and Plant Communities 14-107 SOURCE EBRI. O,ddk. ESA Bi{I Cmryon Rnstorntion - Phase 2H Figure 11 Proposed Project- Phase 2A FSA Extent of Invasive Plant Removal 14-108 17, `11— - I Temporary Construction Fencing W I . '. Fencing would enclose construction area and specific location would avoid removal of healthy native vegetation Operational Fencing Project Site -77 Ran Existing Trails Proposed Interpretive Signs/Rest Areas iek `¢ + 10 r Operational Fencing Locations .INV V. k .r jr;.• E �' %6 • -�= n+ � f � 4 � w r y � � •�L.. , ) � J � } � - ��_ 11,1 , � e4 r UppoQ 44 A�M'` •` �P�i nYan` Dr • rt ' l -'7 pD� '01 AMP Representative Construction Fencing Representative Operational Fencing SOURCE: ESA, 2018 U."SIA Representative Operational Fencing Big Canyon Restoration - Phase 2A Figure 15 Representative Construction and Operational Fencing 14-110 Exhibit E Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaption Project — Phase 2A Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2018-001(PA2018-078) State Clearinghouse Number 2018081098 14-111 BIG CANYON COASTAL HABITAT RESTORATION AND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Prepared for January 2019 City of Newport Beach Public Works Department ESA 14-112 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction..................................................................................1 Section 2: Project Description.......................................................................2 Section 3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...............................3 Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A I ESA /Project No. 171063 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2019 14-113 Introduction The following is a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A, which has been prepared pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. This MMRP lists all applicable mitigation measures from the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The appropriate timing of implementation and responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the mitigation measures from the IS/MND to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A ESA ! Project No. 171063 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2019 14-114 Project Description The proposed project is located within the City of Newport Beach, on a site in the eastern portion of the 60 -acre Big Canyon Nature Park. The proposed project encompasses 11.32 acres and includes the following: (1) restore historic riparian habitat by removing non-native vegetation and replanting native species, (2) create a mosaic of native and sustainable habitats, (3) stabilize the creek and floodplain with erosion control measures, and (4) enhance public access within the Big Canyon Nature Park by improving existing trails and closing illegal trails. The project also includes maintenance of the restored habitat area and erosion quality measures to ensure that the plants are established and erosion features function as designed. Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Protect — Phase 2A 2 ESA ! Protect No. 171063 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2019 14-115 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The following table will be used by the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Bay Conservancy to enforce mitigation measures during each phase of the project pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CECA Statues and Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The City of Newport Beach and the Newport Bay Conservancy will be responsible for the implementation for all the mitigation measures listed in Table 1 below and shall maintain monitoring documentation on each measure within the City of Newport Beach files at the addressed listed below. The entity responsible for monitoring will change based on the specific requirements identified in each mitigation measure. The timing of the implementation is also listed. When compliance with a mitigation measure for each project phase has been demonstrated, documentation on the verification date column is provided and monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied. No further monitoring will be required for the completed mitigation measure. For measures that require monitoring during operation of the project, annual documentation on the verification date column or a separate letter/memorandum shall be provided in the monitoring file that is kept at the City of Newport Beach. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be kept on file at the following address: City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A 3 ESA ! Protect No. 171063 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2019 14-116 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Timing for Responsible Party Verification Date Implementation Biological Resources (1310) 1310-1: Special -Status Plants Special -Status Plants. Impacts to special -status plants Two weeks prior to Newport Bay Conservancy would be avoided by implementing the following: construction and City of Newport Beach a. Within two weeks prior to construction activities, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Project Biologist to confirm presence/absence of special - status plant species within the project site. The locations of any special -status plant species identified during the pre -construction botanical survey, including those with a CRPR of 1, 2, or 3 shall be flagged (or otherwise delineated and marked) by a biologist and shall be avoided. To verify avoidance during construction, a qualified biologist shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities within 10 feet of a special -status plant species population, b. If special -status plant species are observed during the preconstruction surveys within the portion of the project site proposed for restoration and if avoidance of the special - status plant species is not feasible, coordination with USFWS andlor CDFW will be required to confirm suitable mitigation prior to ground -disturbing activities. The mitigation strategy may include on-site or off-site restoration, translocation, and/or seed collection, and shall be outlined in a restorationlrevegetation plan to be approved by USFWS and/or CDFW. At a minimum, the plan shall include a description of the existing conditions, site selection criteria, site preparation and planting methods, maintenance and monitoring schedule, performance standards, adaptive management strategies, and identification of responsible parties. BIO -2: Nesting Birds. Impacts to nesting birds would be avoided by conducting all Prior to construction Newport Bay Conservancy grading and construction activities outside of the bird breeding season (February 15 to Grading and construction and City of Newport Beach August 31; January 15 to August 31 for raptors). If breeding season cannot be avoided, activities should be the following measures would be followed. conducted outside of bird a. During the avian breeding season, a qualified Project Biologist shall conduct a breeding season from preconstruction avian nesting survey no more than 3 days prior to vegetation September 1 to February disturbance or site clearing. If grading or other construction activity begins in the 14 for passerine birds and non -breeding season and proceeds continuously into the breeding season, no September 1 to January 14 surveys shall be required. However, if there is a break of 3 days or more in grading for raptors to avoid impacts or construction activities during the breeding season, a new nesting bird survey shall to nesting birds. be conducted before these activities begin again. If grading and construction b. The nest survey small cover all reasonably potential nesting locations on and activities are conducted within 300 feet of the proposed areas where construction activities will occur. during the avian breeding c. If an active nest is found during an avian nest survey, a qualified Project Biologist season, a preconstruction shall implement a 300 -foot minimum avoidance buffer forspecial-status species I survey shall be conducted Big Canyon Coastal Habktal Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A Mitigation Moniloring and Reporting Pragrarn ESA ! Project No. 171063 January 2019 14-117 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing for Implementation Responsible Party Verification Date (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo); a 500 -foot minimum no earlier than 3 days prior and City of Newport Beach avoidance buffer for all raptor species; and 300 -foot minimum avoidance buffer to vegetation disturbance (or other buffer as determined appropriate by the Project Biologist) for other or site clearing for each passerine birds. Buffer distances for other species will be determined by the area of work. Project Biologist based on the species and its breeding or nesting requirements. The nest site area shall not be disturbed until the nest becomes inactive or the young have fledged. BIO -3: Special -Status Sats. Impacts to special -status bat species would be avoided by Prior to construction Newport Bay Conservancy conducting all grading and construction activities outside of the maternity roosting Grading and construction and City of Newport Beach season (mid-March through August). If maternity roosting season cannot be avoided, activities should be the following measures would be followed. conducted outside of a. If gradinglconstruction activities must occur during the maternity season, a maternity roosting season qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey to identify potential from September to Mid - active roosts. The pre -construction survey shall occur the night before March to avoid impacts to grading/construction activities to observe if any bats are exiting suitable habitat special -status bats. within 100 feet of the proposed work area. The pre -construction survey will be If grading and construction conducted at sunset for 90 minutes by a qualified biologist with the use of a activities are conducted thermal imaging camera to observe and record any bats. If no bats are during the maternity observed, work may proceed in the proposed work area the following day and roosting season which is will remain cleared for the duration of the work activity. If active roosts are mid-March to August, a observed, no grading/construction activities may take place in the proposed work area the following day and not until it can be verified with thermal imaging preconstruction survey that bats have left the area or the maternity roosting season is over. shall be conducted no b. Additional pre -construction surveys will be required in new work areas located more the night before more than 100 feet away from the previously surveyed work area. grading/construction activities Cultural Resources (CR) CRA: Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor (working under the direct Prior to construction; Newport Bay Conservancy supervision of a Secretary of the Interior -qualified archaeologist [USDI, 2008]) shall be During construction; and City of Newport Beach retained to observe all ground -disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, vegetation removal, grubbing, grading, and excavation. Prior to start of ground -disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The City shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ESA 7 Project No 171083 January 2019 14-118 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing for Implementation Responsible Party Verification Date Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the project site. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the City, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries, After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City, the Corps, and any Native American groups who request a copy. A copy of the final report shall be filed at the SCCIC. If archaeological resources are encountered during monitoring, and if it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or a historical resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of treatment. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasibly: mitigation available, a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan would be prepared and implemented by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Corps and the City. The plan will provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Corps and the City shall be required to consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered. CR -2: Native American Monitoring. The City shall retain a Native American monitor to Prior and during Newport Bay Conservancy observe all ground -disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, construction and City of Newport Beach vegetation removal, grubbing, grading, and excavation. The Native American monitor shall be selected from amongst the Native American groups identified by the NAHC as having affiliation with the project area. The Native American representative shall be allowed to participate in the cultural resources sensitivity training, discusses in Mitigation Measure CR -1, and all authorities ascribed to the archaeological monitor, including the authority to stop work in the event of the discove of cultural resources, Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaplatior Project — Phase 2A Mitigation Moriloring and Reportirg Program ESA ! Project No 179063 January 2019 14-119 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing for Implementation Responsible Party Verification Date shall also apply to the Native American monitor. In the event that archaeological Newport Bay Conservancy materials are encountered, the Native American monitor shall participate in any and City of Newport Beach discussions involving treatment and subsequent mitigation. CR -3: Paleontological Monitoring. A qualified paleontologist meeting the Society for During construction Newport Bay Conservancy Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines for professional paleontologist (SVP, 2010) and City of Newport Beach shall be retained to oversee all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. That said, both the paleontological and archaeological monitoring could be carried out by the same person, presuming the monitor is qualified in both disciplines. During ground disturbing activity, the qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall conduct spot-checks of exposed sediments. The purpose would be to determine whether the project would impact the paleontologically sensitive Monterey Formation. The qualified paleontologist may institute paleontological monitoring if, based on observations of subsurface stratigraphy or other factors, he or she determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is high. Paleontological monitoring would be conducted by a paleontological monitor working under the supervision of the qualified paleontologist. In the event that monitoring is required, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens and shall complete daily monitoring logs outlining the day's activities. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository, along with any fossils recovered during construction. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural Training shall occur prior to resources sensitivity training (see Mitigation Measure CR -1) either in person or via a site grading training module provided to the qualified archaeologist. The training shall include information of the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered, and the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. In the event of unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources, the City shall During construction cease ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be assessed by the qualified paleontologist. The qualified paleontologist shall assess the find, implement recovery measures if necessary, and determine if paleontological monitoring is warranted once work resumes. Noise (NOI) NOI-1: The construction contractor shall ensure proper maintenance and working order During construction Construction Contractor, of equipment and vehicles and that all construction equipment is equipped with Newport Bay Conservancy manufacturers approved mufflers and baffles. and City of Newport Beach Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ESA t Project No, 171063 January 2019 14-120 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing for Implementation Responsible Party Verification Date NO[ -2: The construction contractor(s) shall endeavor to use quieter equipment as Pre -grade meeting and Construction Contractor, opposed to noisier equipment (such as rubber -tired equipment rather than track during construction Newport Bay Conservancy equipment), when feasible. Noisy equipment shall be switched off when not in use. and City of Newport Beach NOI-3: Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several During construction Construction Contractor, pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels, to the extent Newport Bay Conservancy feasible. and City of Newport Beach NOI-4: The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so During construction Construction Contractor, that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Newport Bay Conservancy and City of Newport Beach Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation Project — Phase 2A Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program ESA 1 Protect Na. 171063 January2019 14-121 Attachment No. CC 2 Vicinity Map 14-122 03/13/2018 VICINITY MAP . � rl b] = •GIOII[l P hi.if [ a Y• . High Sc h 0", ' Project Site A ., ... .... ...... •.. �::ar=; ��.K`.._ .. .. ... �.^tel<: i:.,.. , ^, �.. � � �.�'� . . � � S:• n s', .•� •40.1 0.:i.. 'AV v Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2018-001 (PA2018-078) 1900 Back Bay Drive 14-123 Attachment No. CC 3 Project Plans 14-124 BIG CANYON COASTAL HABITAT RESTORATION AND ADAPTATION PROJECT PHASE 2A AUGUST 16, 2018 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA All s Ill'.N INC; FON • _ -` KFACIf Cu4LF M@. o-.•pn 'Beach r a i� c'rd A LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE DATUMS HORIZONTAL: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 CA STATE PLANE ZONE 6 US FEET VERTICAL: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 FEET ABBREVIATIONS EG EXISTING GRADE FG FINISHED GRADE (E) EXISTING (N) NEW IN NOT TO SCALE PIP PROTECT IN PLACE RSP ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION TBD TO BE DETERMINED INDEX OF SHEETS # IDSHEET NAME 1 G1 TITLE SHEET 2 1 G2 IGENERAL NOTES ti I U4 JEROSION CONTROL PHASING PLAN 7 C5 TYPICAL SECTIONS AND DETAILS 8 C6 BANK RECONSTRUCTION DETAILS 9 C7 SCHEDULE OF BANK MEASURES 10 Li SITE PLANTING PLAN 11 L2 PLANTING SCHEDULE LEGEND LIMITS OF WORK STAGING AREA —0—C -0—C-0— ACCESS ROUTE ® SEWER MANHOLE SEWER EASEMENT S o SEWER PIPELINE OTHER MANHOLE R OVERHEAD POWERLINE 15 Lb IRRIGATION NOTES AND SCHEDULE i6 L7 IRRIGATION DETAILS INDICATES SECTION NUMBER A VIEW DIRECTION SHEET NUMBER ON WHICH SECTION APPEARS SHEET NUMBER ON WHICH SECTION IS CUT INDICATES DETAIL NUMBER 1 SHEET NUMBER ON WHICH DETAIL APPEARS SHEET NUMBER ON WHICH DETAIL IS NOTED VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE DEFINITIONS PROJECT OWNER: NEWPORT BAY CONSERVANCY 2301 UNIVERSITY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT:PETER BRYANT, NBC PRESIDENT PH: (949) 933-9654 PROJECT DESIGNER: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES 550 WEST C STREET, SUITE 750 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ENGINEER CONTACT: DAVID POHL, PhD, PE, LEED AP PH: (619) 719-4200 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CONTACT: TRACY JOHNSON, PLA (6091) PH: (503) 274-2010 VERIFY SCALE rtGE o 0 60% DRAFT G' 16 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 14-125 GENERAL NOTES GENERAL 1. THESE NOTES HIGHLIGHT KEY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION, 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL,STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE COPIES OF THE APPROVED PLAINS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS ON SITE AND READILY AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES. 4. THE OWNER HAS OBTAINED PERMITS FROM RESOURCE AGENCIES FOR THIS PROJECT. COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE RESTRICNONS FOR PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY, WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION. SITE ACCESS 5. ACCESS TO THE SITE IS ON PUBLIC ROADS. COORDINATE WITH THE CITY FOR APPROVED HAUL ROUTES AND TRAFFIC PERMITS AND APPROVALS. SITE PROTECTION AND EXISTING UTILITIES 6. PROTECTALL IMPROVEMENTSAND VEGETATION FROM DAMAGE. ANY DAMAGED FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED TOTHE SATISFARION OF THE OWNER AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 7. INSTALL EXCLUSION FENCING AT PERIMETER OF ALL VEGETATION TO BE PRESERVED. B. UTILITIES: LIMITED INFORMATION EXISTS ON EXISTING UTILITIES. KNOWN UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ITS OWN ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND VERIFY ALL UTILITY INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BYLAW. 9. PRIORTOANY GROUND DISTURBANCE, CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND STATE LAW. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT(USA)AT 1-800-227-2600 PRIOR TO START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. 11. BASE MAP SOURCE: EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS ARE BASED ON ORANGE COUNTY LIDAR FLOWN IN 2011 BY USGS. THE SURVEY REPORT 15 AVAILABLE HERE: https://coastnoaa.gov/htdata/lidarl_z/geoidl2a/data/4793/supplemental/ca2011_usgs_.r ge_m4793_sury y, po pdt 12. SPOT ELEVATIONS WITHIN THE SITE ARE BASED ON GROUND SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES IN 2018. 13. HORIZONTAL PROJECT DATUM: CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM ZONE 6. NORTH AMERICAN DATUM (NAD83, 1992(. 14, VERTICAL PROJECT DIU M: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM(NAVD88). 15. SURVEY AND GRADE CONTROL: THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SURVEY CONTROL AND LAYOUT NEEDED TO PERFORM THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR'S SURVEYING METHODS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD SURVEY PRACTICES AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE SURVEY. SEE SPECS. 16. EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE AND PROVIDED FOR GENERAL REFERENCES ONLY. THE ACCURACY OF THE ELEVATION CONTOURS IS LIMITED BY DISTORTION DUE TO EXISTING VEGETATION. 17. FIELD VERIFY FLOWLINE AND BANK CONDITIONSOF EXISTI NG CHANNEL CON NEC TION FOLLOWINGCLEARINGAND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES THAT INCLUDE REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIAL PROVISION PRIOR TO COMMENCING GRADING, AND NOTIFY ENGINEER IF ACTUAL GRADES DIFFER. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I8. CONDUCT GRADING OPERATIONS TO CONTROL WINDBLOWN DIRT AND DUST AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AT MINIMUM PERFORM WATERING AS NEEDED TO PREVENT VISIBLE DUST FROM LEAVING THE JOB SITE. 19, PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD. INCORPORATE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND EROSION CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) TO PREVENT EROSION, SEDIMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A SITE-SPECIFIC SW PPP, PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED SWPPP DEVELOPER (QSD) AS DEFINED BY THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (CGP) AND SUBMITTHE SWPPP TO THE ENGINEER USING THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN ON SHEET C4 AND REFERENCED DETAILS AS THE BASIS. AS THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN, CLEARING, GRUBBING AND GRADING SHALL BE PHASED TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION DURING A STORM EVENT. THE SWPPP SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT PHASING OUTLINE IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN ON SHEET C4. THE SWPPP SHALL INCLUDE THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CGP. THE CITY WILL SUBMIT THE APPROVED SWPPP TO THE STATE WATER BOARD AS PART OF THE PERMIT REGISTRATION DOCUMENT PACKAGE. NOTE THAT NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE ALLOWED UNTIL THE STATE WATER BOARD APPROVES THE PERMIT PACKAGE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AMEND THE SWPPP AS NEEDED DURING THE COURSE OF WORK TO REFLECT ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGNATE A QUALIFIED SWPPP PRACTITIONER (QSP), AS DEFINED TO BE THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ON THE PROJECT AT ALL TIMES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE PROVIDING ALL REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (MONITORING, INSPECTION, RAIN EVENT ACTION PLANS, ANNUAL REPORTS, ETC.) TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. TIME SENSITIVE REPORTS INVOLVING MONITORING DATA SHALL BE PROVIDED AS SOON AS THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. ALL OTHER REPORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THEIR DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE WATER BOARD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CGP, THAT SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: A. THE A SWPPP TO CONFORM TO A RISK LEVEL 2 AND THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES ADMINISTER, IMPLEMENT, MAINTAIN, AND ENSURE ADEQUATE FUNCTIONING OF THE VARIOUS WATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE SWPPP DURING CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING ALL NUMERIC ACTION LEVEL (NAL) AND NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATION (NEL) SAMPLING, MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS STATUTORILY REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT SITE. THESE TASKS MUST BE PERFORMED BY A CSP. B. PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ALL DOCUMENTATION AT THE JOBSITE AND ADMINISTRATION FOR THE ENTIRE CONTRACT PERIOD. C. PERFORM ALL WORK REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT INCLUDING PREPARATION OF ALL RAIN EVENT ACTION PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENT CONTROL BM PS D. PERFORM ALL WORK REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT INCLUDING PREPARATION OF ALL RAIN EVENT ACTION PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENT CONTROL BM PS' E. PROVIDEALL LABOR, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL BMPS WHICH MAYBE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. 20. ELI MINATE OR MINIMIZE NON -STORM DISCHARGE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE TO (E) CHANNEL AND ALL OTHER WATER BODIES INCLUDING GROUNDWATER. WORK SEQUENCE 21. MAPPING OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, BANK CONDITIONS AND I NVASIVE TREES HAS BEEN PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THE ACCURACY OF MAPPING IS LIMITED BY DENSE VEGETATION. THE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STAGES, TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO REVIEW FIELD CONDITIONS, AND ADJUST THE DESIGN AS NEEDED. 22. THE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN THE FOLLOWING GENERALLY SEQUENCE: A. IMPLEMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PER APPROVED SWPPP. B. PERFORM CLEARING AND GRUBBING OF DESIGNATED AREAS INCLUDING REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE PEPPER TREES AND ROOT SYSTEMS. C. CONDUCT SELECT NON-NATIVE VEGETATION REMOVAL WITHIN DESIGNATED AREAS THAT CONTAIN NATIVE VEGETATION TO BE PROTECTED D. IMPLEMENT INVASIVE INSECT (POLYPHAGOUS SHOT HOLE BORER (PSHB() PROTOCOLS E. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHIPPED MATERIAL AND BRANCHES FROM CLEARING AND GRUBBING OPERATIONS PER SPECIAL PROVISIONS F. STAKE THE EXCAVATION LIMITS FOR REVIEW BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. G. PERFORM PRE -EXCAVATION GROUND SURVEY. H. ADJUST STAKES AS INSTRUCTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO MEET THE DESIGN INTENT BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS FOLLOWING TREE AND ASSOCIATED ROOT SYSTEM REMOVAL. I.PERFORM EXCAVATION IN AN ORDERLY MANNER, WITH COMPLETION OF CONTIGUOUS AREAS AS WORK PROGRESSES. J. COMPLETE SOIL AMENDMENTS IN DESIGNATED AREAS C PER POST -CONSTRUCTION GROUND SURVEY. L.STAKE THE LIMITS OF BANK TREATMENTS. M. ALLOW FOR REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF BANK TREATMENTS BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. N. INSTALLBANKTREATMENTS. 0. PERFORM SEEDING, PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL. P. COMPLETE COMPOST PLACEMENT AND ADDITIONAL SOIL AMENDMENTS Q. INSTALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM. EARTHWORK 23. EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO THE LINES AND GRADES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 24. PLACE EXCAVATED MATERIAL ONSITE ATTHE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS, IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PRIORITY: A. SOIL FILL FOR VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS, PROVIDED MATERIAL IS DEEMED SUITABLE TOPSOIL B. BACKFILLING OF VOIDS FROM PEPPER TREE REMOVAL C. FINE GRADING TO ESTABLISH CONTINUOUS SLOPE FROM CHANNEL BANKS TO THE TOE OF THE UPLAND SLOPE TO PROMOTE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY D. PLACEMENT AS SLOPE FILL IN EXCESS SOIL DISPOSAL LOCATION ALONG WEST BOUNDARY OF THE SITE WATER MANAGEMENT 25. TH E PROJECT INVOLVES EXCAVATION,TRANSPORT, AND PLACEMENT OF MATERIAL WITHIN AN ACTIVE CHANNEL AND/OR BELOW GROUNDWATER. 26, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WATER MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING DEWATERING, FLOW DIVERSION AND DRAINAGE. 27, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM DEWATERING ONLY AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE WORK. DUE TO POTENTIALLY HIGH SELENIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER, WORKING IN WET CONDITIONS MAY BE ACCEPTABLE AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEWATERING AND WATER DISPOSAL. 28. TREAT AND DISPOSE OF REMOVED WATER IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL PERMITS AT A MINIMUM, TREAT ALL REMOVED WATER AS NEEDED TO MEET WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND REMOVE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ANY DISCHARGE OFFSITE. 29. IF THERE IS FLOW IN ACTIVE CHANNEL, SUBMIT PLAN FLOW DIVERSION PLAN TO ENGINEER FOR PRIOR TO COMMENCING EARTHWORK. ANY FLOW DIVERSION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT RESTRICTIONS. SEEDING, SOIL PREPARATION & EROSION CONTROL 30. FOLLOWING GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED,PLANTED, COMPOSTED AND STABILIZED ASSHOWN ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND THE RELEGATION PLANS. 31. APPLYADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS THE CONTRACTOR DEEMS NECESSARY FOR SWPPP COMPLIANCE. 32. SOILAMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED PER THE SPECIAL PROVISION PRIOR TO SEEDING. ADDITIONAL TESTING OF THE SOILS MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO SOIL AMENDMENTS. ALLOW ENGINEER UP TO SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS TO SAMPLE AND ANALYZE SURFACE SOILS OF FINISHED GRADES. 33, APPLY AND MIX SOIL AMENDMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. 34. PRIOR TO SEEDING AND PLANTING, TREAT FINAL SURFACES FOR SEED AND PLANT PREPARATION AND/OR EROSION CONTROL. RIP OVER -COMPACTED SOILS AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. TRACK WALK TRANSITIONAL SLOPES (ABOVE ELEV. 6 FT NAVD( UP/DOWN SLOPE FOR EROSION CONTROL. 3S. CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH ENGINEER PRIOR TO OCTOBER I TO REVIEW STATUS OF PROJECT EROSION CONTROL AND WATER POLLUTION MEASURES. 36. SEEDING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY JANUARY 31ST AND WATERED AS NEEDED FOR ESTABLISHMENT. ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE BY OCTOBER 15TH. PLANTING AND TEMPORARY IRRIGATION 37. PLANTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE FINAL DATE LISTED INTHE CONTRACT. 38. ADDITIONAL PLANTING AND IRRIGATION NOTES SHEETS 1-I-1-7. WI L_ p VERIFY SCALE aa[ 0 60% DRAFT G26 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2 14-126 (E) TRAIL CROSSING AND GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE 9 � � o� c s / Pk / O O I / O / O / NOTES a `I 1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS GENERATED FROM 2011 USGS LiDAR OF ORANGE COUNTY, OBTAINED FROM NOAA COASTAL DATA VIEWER AT https://coost.n000.gov/datoviewer 0 C) LEGEND 7-W O BARE GROUND Iso0o ss_s`�omp) ® MENZIE'S GOLDENBRUSH SCRUB ALLIANCE SCALE (FEET) RGE ALKALI HEATH MARSH ALLIANCE VER- SCALE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 0 0 1" PLAN scut. PEPPER TREE GROVE ® T FRESHWATER MARSH 60% DRAFT C1 MIXED ARROYO WILLOW/PEPPER TREE GROVE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 °. 16 14-127 (E) STORMWATER OUTFALL 1 � WI1H GRWIED ROCK SLOPE _ _ PROl EC110N PIP `\ S y, / o 1 � 1FILL AND STABILIZE (E) //� a.�^� =SCOUR HOLE IMTH ROCK �. - ' —TO MINIMIZE PONDING �1 \1 — j // SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C6 `1 s I' ! (E) SEW£All R EASEMENT, TYP DDNFlRM LOCATION OF SEWER PIPE GRADE (N) DRAINAGE \ / /% p CHANNEL AS NEEOEO TO �' MINIMIZE PONOINC o CLHLJI RE CONTOUR FLOODPLAIN 0y ( \ O DRAIN NEEDED AT TREE (� l i REMOVAL DEPRESSIONS Q O � 1 31755 B a 25 O CONTOUR FLOODPLAIN TO O O n 24+00 Q n / I DRAIN AS NEEDED AT TREE 2q* h+ STA 23+50 TO 28+00 ) REMOVAL DEPRESSIONS 6 i SO 1 RECONSTRUCT CHANNEL BANKS C V M1 AFTER TREE REMOVAL O02 SEE SECQ NSIV B. C. SHEET CS A I 1 P 1 11 I' I I 1 I �• I .EXCAVATE FLOODPI 5 O^ O 25 V I V 1 I I I I 1 I SEE SECT QT POST SITE CLEARING 1 7 I l g l 1 ' I' Oo �O ' STAGING AREA a 11 I l l ry l I 1 I I 0 II IIII III \\4'\^ ACCESS RAMP I I I I I I I FROM (E) TRAIL b l l I I I I a T :f NOTES SITE GRADING PLAN 1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS GENERATED FROM 2011 USGS LOAR OF ORANGE COUNTY, OBTAINED FROM NOAA COASTAL DATA VIEWER AT IFttps://coast. noaa.goV/datavi—er 2. THE INTENT OF GRADING AND CONTOURING ACTIVITIES IS TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AND LIMIT PONDING ON THE SITE. 3. EXTENTS AND MEASURES FOR CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN GRADING WILL BE CONFIRMED AFTER CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE. 4. EXTENTS OF CHANNEL BANK RECONSTRUCTION AND FLOODPLAIN GRADING TO BE CONFIRMED AFTER CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES AND PRE–EXCAVATION GROUND SURVEY ARE COMPLETE. IF TREE REMOVAL CAVITY EXCEEDS 25 LINEAR FEET OF AFFECTED BANK, EXCAVATE 20 FT WIDE FLOODPLAIN AS SHOWN IN SECTION B ON SHEET C5 FOR INSIDE BENDS AND STRAIGHT SEGMENTS, RECONSTRUCT CHANNEL BANKS WITH VSL FOR OUTSIDE BENDS AS SHOWN IN SECTION A ON SHEET C5 (THIS SUBMITTAL ASSUMES 25% OF BANKS IN THESE REACHES REQUIRE FLOODPLAIN BENCHING AN 25% WILL INCLUDE VST RECONSTRUCTION). FOR ALL OTHER LOCATIONS, LAY BACK BANKS AT 3:1 SLOPE PER SECTION C ON SHEET C5. 5. WITHIN FLOODPLAIN BENCH EXCAVATION AREAS, BANKS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY INVASIVE TREE REMOVAL (LESS THAN 2 FEET BANK HEIGHT REMAINING) SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED PER SECTION B ON SHEET C5. ia\' & \ H Q 0 lb 4- ,(�� • ~1 (E) BIG CAN ON CREEK, TYP \� • A °\0 O,� � �`` �\\, IVF] pJ o Lj a ad `g 0 41N BENCH, CN D SHEET CS Op � ° 0 4 D A \ • a ° BANK TREATMENTS TED, SEE NOTE 4 38+50 rP3.� N LEGEND BANK RECONSTRUCTION WITH VSLS, SEE SECTION A SHEET C5 Icxeo 0 25 50 00 FLOODPLAIN BENCHING/RECONSTRUCTION, SEE SECTION 8 SHEET CS 6 ... 1222221 ........ IIIIiI wx OSCALE (FEET) �uwE va FLOODPLAIN BENCHING, SEE SECTION D SHEET CS O FLOODPLAIN BENCHING/BANK RECONSTRUCTION TBD, SEE NOTE 4 VERIFY SCALE 0 ® FILL PLACEMENT LOCATION 60% DRAFTC3 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5 OF 16 14-129 >I / MM 4 O \ � / / a. ( ;ELL PL c nE.l RE 9 2Ta , Vi© ��, A C z Q z 1 O SEDIMENT WATTLES S / / �� _ O 2]+50 � /O °eQ � Q G31+oo AA '' woa0 CHIP SOLARrzANON AREA, TYPE m d 30+50/'� VO a v\ SEE NOTE ] F q 14 0 4�7 f/ O / O CHARNEL NG E�TENTS PTER ED A CEAARINCGL \ O X00 +50° } 3(E) BIG CANYON CREEK, TYP \ate\\ \ U F t] AND GRUBBING C74y,0 WATTLEp v \� • "J \\� ;` z U SEDIMENT S 50 8 B SWPPP PHASE 3, ° I I e 00 a 5 CHECK DAM, TYP SWPNAE a E QPi I PP PHS SEE 0 \ a 0 �I IIIIIIII'II 11 I11 I I Q o Oe \ Q� X 0 0 6 � _ a IIID ,II eon ,,, IIII J WOOD CHIP ry / i 4 0 `I I I — --- O u onn J� O ([��\� 4 ° p SOLARIZATION AREA) a SEE NOTES ]8AMP FROMS(E) �AI L I I b O O;? 9 OTE PHASE N 1 Q F rr-i NOTES EROSION CONTROL PHASING so PLAN 1. PHASE 1: PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, SEDIMENT LOGS (WATTLES) SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE LIMITS OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNED FLOODPLAIN BENCHING AND GRADING AS SHOWN. PHASE 1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AREAS ON THE HIGHER ELEVATION (UP—STREAM OF DRAINAGE). SEE DETAIL 8 ON SHEET C6 FOR SEDIMENT LOGS (WATTLES). PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, THE THREE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE STABILIZED USING G 25 50 100 A WOVEN GEOTEXTILES AND A MINIMUM 8 INCH LAYER OF STONE FOR EQUIPMENT ACCESS AND TIRE GRATES OR OTHER MEASURES IMPLEMENTED AT THE ACCESS POINTS EXIT TO CONTROL OFF—SITE SITE MIGRATION OF SEDIMENT. I1 " 2. PHASE 2: PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING ALONG THE STREAM CORRIDOR, CHECK DAMS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE STREAM AT A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET SPACING AS SHOWN. PHASE 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ALONG THE STREAM SCALE (FEET) CORRIDOR SHALL BE CONDUCTED FROMDOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY DIVERSION OF THE DRY WEATHER FLOWS OUTSIDE OF THE CHANNEL SEGMENT WHERE INVASIVE PEPPER TREE ROOTS EXTEND INTO THE WETTED CHANNEL AND WILL BE DISTURBED DURING GRUBBING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. DEWATERING SHALL BE CONDUCTED PER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS SECTION 7-8.6 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. 3. PHASE 3: FOLLOWING CLEARING AND GRUBBING OF THE STREAM CORRIDOR, A SITE SURVEY SHALL BE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO FLOODPLAIN BENCHING AND GRADING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE STREAM STABILIZATION APPROACHES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CHECK DAMS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE. DEWATERING SHALL BE FIELD DETERMINED AND CONDUCTED WHERE GRADING EXTENDS INTO THE WETTED CHANNEL. GRADING OPERATIONS THAT EXTEND INTO THE STREAM SHALL BE AVOIDED TO THE EXTEND FEASIBLE. GRADING OF THE FLOODPLAIN OUTSIDE OF THE STREAM CORRIDOR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN COORDINATION WITH THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHING AND SLOPE GRADING AS SHOWN FROM DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM TO ALLOW 1GNE0 SEDIMENT LOGS TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND THEN REPLACED AS THE GRADING PROGRESSES. SEDIMENT LOGS (WADDLES) SHALLALSO BE PLACED AROUND THE DOWNSTREAM SIDES OF THE TEMPORARY SOIL STAGING AREA AS SHOWN. wry 4. PHASE 4: FOLLOWING STREAM BANK SLOPE GRADING AND BENCHING, THE BANKS WILL BE STABILIZED WITH VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS OR OTHER STABILIZATION METHODS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER AND THE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C6. FOLLOWING SITE FINE GRADING, THE SITE WILL BE STABILIZED WITH NATIVE PLANTINGS AND HYDROSEED MIXTURE.THE SITE SHALL BE FURTHER STABILIZED WITH HYDRO—MULCH AND MULCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS SECTION 800 --- LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION MATERIALS. VERIEr SCALE 5. PHASE 5: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL REMAIN UNTIL THE VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED DURING THE 120 ESTABLISHMENT MAINTENANCE PERIOD. CHECK DAMS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 120 -DAY ° ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. ' 6. SEE SHEET G2 NOTE 15 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON SWPPP SPECIFICATIONS.Ms 7. CHIP INFESTED WOOD ONSITE TO A SIZE OF ONE INCH OR SMALLER. IF BRANCHES ARE TOO LARGE TO CHIP, SOLARIZE THEM UNDER A CLEAR TARP. JULY -AUGUST: COVER CHIPS/LOGS WITH STURDY PLASTIC FOR AT LEAST 6 WEEKS. TEMPERATURES DURING THESE MONTHS SHOULD PREFERABLY BE ABOVE PST (35'C). 6O% DRAFT C4 SEPTEMBER -JUNE: COVER CHIPS/LOGS WITH STURDY PLASTIC FOR AT LEAST 6 MONTHS. 6 or 1 6 8. THESE TWO CHIP STOCKPILE AREAS SHOULD NOT BE USED UNLESS NEEDED, DUE TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO TRAIL USE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 14-130 STA 23+50 TO 28+00 TYPICAL SECTIONS NOTE: RECONSTRUCT BANK ON OUTER BEND PATH VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS WHERE TREE REMOVAL LEAVES DEPRESSION ON BANK, REMOVE NON-NAITVE TREE, NTS GRADE TO DRAIN-- -- -- - �—GRADE TO DRAIN FG. TIP /' _ __ _ ____ F__ `EG. TYP VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS, SEE DETAIL 2 SHEET C5. ^ \ RECONSTRUCT BANK - OUTER BEND 5 ] TYPICAL SECTION 3 NOTE: RECONSTRUCT BANK ON OUTER BENDS WITH VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS IF TREE REMOVAL RESULTS IN BANK LESS THAN VARIES, 30' MAX VARIES. 30' MAX 2 FEET, SEE SECTOR B 1H15 SHEET. 1\ REMOVE NON-NATIVE TREE, NTS 1 PLACE ECF TYP i EG, TYP J / \ VARIES -�� ------ (N) FLOODPLAIN BENCH FG. TYP FLOODPLAIN BENCH 5 ] TYPICAL SECTION °L'ITS, STA 28+00TO IS` STA 30+20 TO S"40 KOTE. RECONSTRUCT INSIDE BEND AND STRAIGHT ANKS WITH VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS AND CREATE FLOODPLAIN WHERE TREE REMOVALREMOVE NON -NAIVE TREE, NTS LEAVES DEPRESSION ON BANK. MA%IMUM� GRADE i0 DRAIN-- / PLACE ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION 20'2 BY 30'2 / -f—GRADE TO DRAIN / f FG, TYP._ _-C_- _ (E) SCOUR POOL % 2 __ PLACE ECF (E) GROUTED ROCK RAMP g, VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS, SEE DETAIL 2 SHEET Cl B' 20' fid' B BANK RECONSTRUCTION AND FLOODPLAIN BENCH -INNER BEND AND STRAIGHT BANKS --- 5 ] TYPICAL SECTION °L - " (E) 30" CONCRETE OUTFALL 0' NOTE: LAY BACK BANKS GREATER THAN 2 FEET TALL BETWEEN AREAS WHERE SECTION A AND/OR PRESERVE NAIVE SECTION 8 ARE APPLIED. TREE, NTS FG, TYP CEASE TO DRAIN—EG, TYP GRADE TO DRAIN 3 1 GRADE BACK BANK, SEED AND INSTALL ECF, TYP / V \ BANKGRADING 5 ] TYPICALSECTION ' '; NOTES 1. DETAILS OF BANK RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES INCLUDING VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS (VSL) AND EROSION CONTROL FABRICS (ECF) ARE PROVIDED ON SHEET C6. SCHEDULE OF BANK RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES IS PROVIDED ON SHEET C7. 2. ALL CUT BANKS SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 3:1 (H:V). 3. ROCK SIZING FOR SCOUR POOL STABILIZATION (DETAIL 1) WILL BE PROVIDED IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS. 4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REVEGETATED PER SHEET L7. SCOUR POOL STABILIZATION 5 7 DETAIL scut. 1 - to SCOUR POOL ROCK PROTECTION PROFILE -E - 10 VERIFY SCALE aaaGa o 0 60% DRAFT C5 16 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 14-131 4' LIVE STEM PLANTING, TYP FOR EACH LIFTI ��- FOLD FABRIC AND DOUBLE -LAYER EROSION f BACKFILL------- FABRIC PINNED TO SLOPE (NOTE .ECT NATIVE TOPSOIL r(E) GRADE. TYP Ji ] 8 t.p MIN w00DEry STAKE. TYP 1111 WOVEN FABRIC (NOTE 6) _ UNWOWN FABRIC (NOTE 6) SOIL WRAPPED Iry DOUBLE ------ ��I' LAYER BIODEGRADABLE FABRIC (SEE SPECS) SECTION VIEW 1.5' MIN �OVEREXCAVARON ANDS BACKFILL NOT SHOWN SLOPE EXTENDS BEYOND FOR CLARITY ( 2 \ BANK RECONSTRUCTION DETAIL ] 8 VEGETATED SOIL LIFT - w. 4' TOP TRENCH DETAIL WOVEN FABRIC (NOTE 6) _ UNWOWN FABRIC (NOTE 6) EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ' - `+' =1 NATIVE SEED MIX (NOTE ]) DESGIN GRADE �\ / M \ DOUBLE -LAYER FABRIC !D / SECTION VIEW NOTES 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REVEGETATED PER SHEET L1. VSL 2. LIVE STEMS IN VEILS SHALL BE A MIX OF SANDBAR WILLOW, MULE FAT AND WILLOW BACCHARIS. 3. DISTRIBUTE WILLOW POLES UNIFORMLY WITHIN EACH LIFT AND ACROSS FOOTPRINT OF VSLS. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH DESIGN ENGINEER TO DEVELOP AND CONFIRM LAYOUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF VSL. 4. ADJUST DESIGN GRADE AND VEILS TO CONFORM TO UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM TOPOGRAPHY. ECF 5. FINISH GRADE SURFACE SHALL BE CLEARED OF LOOSE ROCKS, CLODS, STICKS AND GRASS BEFORE FABRIC INSTALLATION. 6. USE TWO LAYERS (DOUBLE LAYER) BIODEGRADABLE COIR EROSION CONTROL FABRIC. PLACE WOVEN FABRIC ON UNWOVEN FABRIC AND SECURE. 7. HYDROSEED SLOPE WITH NATIVE SEED MIX BEFORE PLACING FABRIC. SEE SPECS SECTION 2905 EROSION CONTROL. 8. LAY FABRICLOOSELY AND PIN 2' OC (VERTICAL) AND 2' OC (HORIZONTAL) TO MAINTAIN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE FINISH GRADE SURFACE. DO NOT STRETCH. 9. FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED VERTICALLY DOWNSLOPE AND OVERLAPPED A MIN OF 4" IN DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION 10. FABRIC SHALL BE EXTENDED MIN 2' LATERALLY FROM THE TOP OF BANK, SECURED PER DETAIL THIS SHEET. 11. INSTALL BOTTOM TRENCH AT EDGE OF WATER, OR TOE OF SLOPE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. BM 12, BEGIN LIVE POLE PLANTING 0.5 FEET ABOVE TOE OF BANK OR SUMMER BASE FLOW WATER SURFACE ELEVATION. 13. ROCK -SOIL MIX TO CONSIST OF 50% 75 LB ROCK, 25% BEDDING, AND 25% NATIVE MATERIAL. PERENNIAL WSE. TYP 1 — — — L � — (a BOTTOM TRENCH - CHANNEL BANK BANK TOE I�TOP OF SLOPE DOUBLE LAYER EROSION BEGIN TRENCH MIN 2' LATERALLY 6 CONTROL FABRIC TOP OF BANK FROM TOP OF BANK (NOTE 10) PIN AT TRENCH EDGE 2' MIN 1 ' DESIGN GRADE BURY FABRIC -' TOE OF SLOPE MIN 1' W BY 2' D 1RENCH a•= SEE DETAIL BURY FABRIC IN 6" W BY DOUBLE -LAYER EROSION • TYP—•IY- — N THIS SHEET 6 12" D TRENCH CONTROL FABRIC \1- _�II=III— 1H—III—III —II TTP —II ��11—ISI ISI—III— I—I��I�I— 2' 6" IN SII I1= —III SII—II W _ =�Tl rl I I I—III I—I P I—I � III. F+••I 6" COMPACTED NATIVE COMPACTED NATIVE MATERIAL IN TRENCH PIN, TIP MATERIAL IN TRENCH (90X RC) (90R RC) O \ BANK RECONSTRUCTION DETAIL / 4 \ BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL w. 4' TOP TRENCH DETAIL 8 8 EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ' - `+' ] 8 SECTION VIEW - 8 8 SECTION VIEW SLOPE EXTENDS BEYOND STEP 6B: FULLY DRIVE STAKES UNTIL ROPE IS TAUT. WOVEN COIR FABRIC & STAKING, TYP. (SEE DETAIL 8, THIS SHEET) DESIGN NSTALLATION, TIP. GRADE, TYP. STEP 6A: PARTIALLY DRIVE STAKES APPROX. 6" AND TIE ROPE SECURELY IN DIAMOND KEY FABRIC UNDER TOE TRENCH GRAVEL, TYP. ��\�\ PATTERN. FILL MATERIAL 3" MIN GRAVEL LAYER / WOVEN COIR FABRIC ALTERNATE LIVE POLES WOODEN STAKES FILL TOE TRENCH WITH SEE SECTION F (2'DOC) GRAVEL, TYP. STEP 5: INSTALL FABRIC AND BACKFILL KEY TRENCHES WITH ROCK -SOIL MIX (NOTE 13) VARIES 1 THIS SHEET TRANSITION ROCK -SOIL MIX "IN TRENCH MATCH GRADE WOODEN STAKE 4' OC, TYP, 2 MIN E - — — — — — LIVE STEMS, TYP. 2' MIN EMBED STEM 12"t LIVE STEMS, TYP. BELOW FINISHED GRADE �\ E \ BRUSH AT �\ / E \ BRUSH MAT TRASITION TRENCH G STEP 4: COVER GRAVEL WITH WOVEN 8 8 PLAN VIEW Ate' T ' S 8 8 SECTION VIEW COIR FABRIC SEE NOTE B 12 3: PLACE 3" COM PACT EXCAVATED MING GRAVEL OVER STEMS SOIL ON UPSLOPE SIDE - F GEOTEXTILE 3' f STEP 2: PLACE LIVE STEMS PERPENDICULAR _�_ TO CHANNEL =III—III — II -III -III -II iNI�IdIr —m_m_ITI_ _ CROSS SECTION VIEW TRENCH DETAIL SECTION VIEW NOT TO SCALE KEY IN BOTH ENDS OF BRUSH MAT •71iSTEP 1C EXCAVATE KEY TRENCH STAKES 2' OC ALTERNATE WCODEN STAKE WITH LIVE POLE, ST P IF: EXCAVATE (MOM 12) TRANSITION TRENCH _Aim sTusw 114T 8 8 / PLAN VIEW �/A, ROPE TO SECURE TOP OF LIVE POLES AT KEY TRENCH w. 4' PE ROPE OVER `I COIR FABRIC w 111 % /WOODEN STAKE, TYP. STAKE TON CENTER MIN.) II�III PERSPECTIVE VIEW NOTES A. EXCAVATE A 2"-3" DEEP X 9" WIDE TRENCH ALONG THE CONTOUR OF THE SLOPE. EXCAVATED SOIL SHOULD BE PLACED UPSLOPE FROM THE ANCHOR TRENCH. B. PLACE THE WATTLE IN THE TRENCH SO THAT IT CONTOUR$ TO THE SOIL SURFACE. COMPACT SOIL FROM THE EXCAVATED TRENCH AGAINST THE WATTLE ON THE UPHILL SIDE. ADJACENT WATTLE$ SHOULD TIGHTLY ABUT. C SECURE THE WATTLE WITH 18"-24" STAKES EVERY 3'4' AND WITH A STAKE ON EACH END. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE WATTLE LEAVING AT LEAST 2"-3" OF STAKE EXTENDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE FACE. 9 SEDIMENT LOGS WADDLES fi S SECTION VIEW p ria �+ • •h�:��„i ��`� •,'�� NOTES: A. CHECK DAMS SHOULD BE CHECKED FOR SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AFTER EACH STORM EVENT OF 1/2 -INCH OR GREATER. SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN IT REACHES ONE HALF OF THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT OF THE DAM. B. REGULAR INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO ENSURE THAT THE CENTER OF THE DAM IS LOWER THAN THE EDGES. EROSION CAUSED BY HIGH FLOWS AROUND THE EDGES OF THE DAM SHOULD BE CORRECTED. VERIFY SCALE 10 TEMPORARY CHECKDAM D 8 8 SECTION AND PROFILEVIEW scALe.I -I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C6 8 of 16 14-132 BANK MEASURES TYPE QUANTITY (APPROX.) UNIT FLOODPLAIN BENCHING (CUT) 1650 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK BEGIN BANK BANK STA END STA GRADING TREATMENT GRADING TREATMENT 23+50 23+56 31 SLOPE ECF 3:1SLOPE ECF BANK GRADING 3:1 SLOPE (CUT) gg3 3� 23+55 23+75 SFT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 3:1SLOPE ECF 23+75 23+90 31 SLOPE ECF 30R FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 23+90 26+OS LOFT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF IOFf FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 26+05 26+I5 LOFT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 31 SLOPE ECF BACKFILL TREE CAVITIES (FILL) W� 26+15 26+25 lOFT FLOOOPIAIN VSL+ECF 15FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 26+25 26135 3:1SLOPE ECF 15FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 26+35 26165 BANK RECONSTRUCTION VSL 15FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 26+65 26165 3:1SLOPE ECF 15FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF ON SITE SOIL PLACEMENT (FILL) 750 26165 26tJ5 3:1SLOPE ECF 3:1 SLOPE ECF 261]5 25130 BANK RECONSTRUCTION VSL 3:15LOPE ECF 25+30 25+60 BANK RECONSTRUCTION VSL SFT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 25+60 25+50 3:15LOPE ECF SFT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 25+50 25+55 SFT FLOOOPIAIN VSL+ECF SFT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF Q 25+55 25+65 SFT FLOOOPIAIN VSL+ECF BANK RECONSTRUCTION VSL Q „l x�¢ N 25+65 25+80 -S LOPE ECF BANK RECONSTRUCTION VSL 25+80 25+95 30FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 3:1 SLOPE ECF 25+95 26165 30FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 15FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF %❑ HAS d¢x 26165 27+85 30FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF BANK RECONSTRUCTION VSL O a 27+85 33*70 30FT FLOODPLAIN ECF 30FT FLOODPLAIN ECF ¢ 3317 0 ozU A UFLa w �O y xw x a U o ¢wN >v cG �Qv UIQ yew ro H D: � 0 36F20 poD. N TBD TBD W z a 30FT FLOODPLAIN VSLtECF 30FT FLOODPLAIN a NOTES 3]+40 39+60 TBD TBD TBD TBD 1. STATIONING FOR SCHEDULE OF BANK ACTIVITIES ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST 5 FEET. 2. BANK RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES ARE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC (ECF), VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS (VSL) OR BRUSHMAT (BM). SEE SHEET C5 FOR DETAILS ON RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES. $ 3. BANK TREATMENTS FOR STA 32+15 TO 36+05 AND 37+45 TO icxEo I 111—N fi 39+45 SHALL BE DETERMINED ONCE CLEARING AND GRUBBING IS COMPLETE. 4. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE ESTIMATES OF MAXIMUM POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES AND SHALL BE REFINED VIA TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR AFTER CLEARING AND VERIFY SCALE R GRUBBING ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE. 5. VSL TOTALS ARE FOR INDIVIDUAL VSL LAYERS. RECONSTRUCTION AT D ANY GIVEN BANK LOCATION RANGES FROM 2-8 VSL LAYERS. B 6. BRUSH MAT EXTENTS TO BE DETERMINED IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL. _ aMrs um. FOR THIS SUBMITTAL APPROX. 150 LF IS ESTIMATED FROM STA n 34+00 TO 37+00. p�L«^' 6UD�0 DRAFT C7 9 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9 r EARTHWORK QUANTITIES (NOTE 4) TYPE QUANTITY (APPROX.) UNIT FLOODPLAIN BENCHING (CUT) 1650 CUBIC YARDS BANK GRADING 3:1 SLOPE (CUT) 660 CUBIC YARDS BACKFILL TREE CAVITIES (FILL) 1000 CUBIC YARDS ON SITE SOIL PLACEMENT (FILL) 750 CUBIC YARDS 0 36F20 TBD TBD TBD TBD 36F20 3]+60 30FT FLOODPLAIN VSLtECF 30FT FLOODPLAIN VSL+ECF 3]+40 39+60 TBD TBD TBD TBD EARTHWORK QUANTITIES (NOTE 4) TYPE QUANTITY (APPROX.) UNIT FLOODPLAIN BENCHING (CUT) 1650 CUBIC YARDS BANK GRADING 3:1 SLOPE (CUT) 660 CUBIC YARDS BACKFILL TREE CAVITIES (FILL) 1000 CUBIC YARDS ON SITE SOIL PLACEMENT (FILL) 750 CUBIC YARDS BANK RECONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES TYPE QUANTITY UNIT EROSION CONTROL FABRIC 170 SQUARE YARDS VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS (NOTE 5) 2310 LINEAR FEET BRUSH MAT (NOTE 6) 150 LINEAR FEET 14-133 STORMWATER OUTFALL \ o' 0 Q YAIH GROUTED ROCKSLOPE PROTECTON "oO N S L .\ 0 - I j \ STABILIZATION AI 25 ± y I 'ro ' p • , e °'a.' , a LJ. , ° °° ° <a°°° \'� CHANNEL\.�TTP` , ity,l °°�➢°°C°.A aa� °�° q l� i� ' (moi ' , ,� ,1'1 J 4 'I,�i .1, 4'I. � 92�°f>/'�; da � a^aaa n a a° °Q<°°a a°° ° ✓�9J%%,;," '�,°°a°°O° `ld 9 /'/�� vv : ate. '4. 1'` z5 22°° �°°�,°°°°iq11'i°°a°a/��, .., an °de°ice'/i� A LEGEND �~ o nn a. •p q, RIPARIAN CORRIDOR WET ALKALINE MEADOW O 9 ✓ 1I HIGH ALKALINE MEADOW - ® UPLAND TRANSITION SELECT REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS AND REPLACEMENT WITH NATIVE RIPARIAN SPECIES NOTES SITE PLANTING 1. THE EXTENT OF PLANNED VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ARE ESTIMATED AND ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD CHANGES BASED ON PLAN SITE CONDITIONS AND FINE GRADING FOLLOWING CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE (RESTORATION ECOLOGIST) WILL PROVIDE FIELD ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LIMITS OF DEFINED PLANTING AND REVEGETATION TYPES TO THE CONTRACTOR FOLLOWING THE CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND AS GRADING ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETED. 2. SEE SHEET L2 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULES. 3. SEE SHEET L3 FOR PLANING DETAILS. �� uvcu 0 25 W 100 IcxEo 6... x SCALE (FEET) RRe VERIFY SCALE 0 1 60% DRAFT L1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 a. 16 14-134 ACCESS RAMP °a° �� uvcu 0 25 W 100 IcxEo 6... x SCALE (FEET) RRe VERIFY SCALE 0 1 60% DRAFT L1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 a. 16 14-134 Schedule: High Alkali Meadow Habitat = 3.26 Acres (142,006 S.F.) Plant Schedule: Upland Transition Habitat = 0.48 Acres (20,909 S.F.) ieeeeeei . W�Plant mun . ..um Ho <a a xFc N W x F�"n SOW F O Ca P� U� Tat.1 F � a U o QjN a Plant Schedule: Wet Alkali Meadow Habitat 1.94 Acres (84,506 S.F.) Plant Schedule: Riparian Corridor 1.16 Acres (50,530 S.F.) U ¢U P TREE SHRUB PI.AIN INGS NOTES 1. THE LIMITS OF WORK SHALL BE FLAGGED IN THE F FIELD PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING ACTIVITIES. 2. DETAILS ON PLANTING SIZES, CONDITION, SPACING, SEED APPLICATION RATES AND PURITY WILL BE 3 N W PROVIDED IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS. 'z d a e a Appl! .'!on Rate: Wilk E—nicll Na,w C..... N.— e o s wrv� uvoE a VERIFY SCALE 0 ®v T -I Wilk Lb, L2 60% DRAFT,...�o. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11 0, 16 14-135 ieeeeeei . mun . ..um 14-135 G.C. SPACING O.C.EDGE ♦ OF GROUNDCOVER AREA / SPACING WALK EDGE DISTANCE FROM EDGE IS SET CROWN OF ROOTBALL 1-2.. ABOVE FINISH GRADE 1/2 THE SPECIFIED O.C. SPACING ' MULCH ROW PLANT CENTER FINISH GRADE TRI -SPACE, AT SPECIFIED O.C. DISTANCE 2" MIN. MINIMUM DEPTH TOPSOIL C^� 2 X ROOTBALL IT iF— COMPACT EXISTING SOIL FOR MULCH1 - =X17=TAT= =11E FIRM STABLE BASE UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL ROOTBALL _ TOPSOIL MINIMUM WIDTH III NATIVE SOIL 2 X ROOTBALL NOTE: NOTE: A 38" DIA. WATERING BASIN SHALL BE KEEP MULCH APPROX. 6" AWAY PROVIDED AROUND EACH PLANT. FROM PLANT TRUNK OR STEM KEEP MULCH APPROX. 6" AWAY FROM PLANT TRUNK OR STEM. PLANT SPACING CONTAINER SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CUT TOP SQUARE FOR STAKE TO PROTRUDE A MINIMUM EASIER INSTALLATION. PROTECT TOP FROM OF TWO LEAF NODES SPLITTING. INSERT STAKE WITH BUDS PLACE ROOT COLLAR AT 4" BERM AROUND EACH INSTALLED STAKE POINTING UP SURROUNDING WITHIN V OF THE CUTTINGS ON BOTH GRADE SIDES, CREATING A WATERING BASIN O — — I ROOTED CUTTING _ PLANTING HOLE 1.5X DEEPER THAN LENGTH MULCH TO 2-4" DEPTH, NOT —� —� �- OF CUTTING AND 1.5' WIDE, BACKFILLED PLACED DIRECTLY AGAINST III III—III—� — — WITH A MIX OF 113 SPECIFIED COMPOST III—III- AND 2/3 NATIVE SOIL MAIN STEM OF THE STAKE- —� II f TRIM OFF BRANCHES\ i7 BURY 2/3 OF STAKE =III IN III WITH CLEAN CUTS��\��\��\ \\ \\ SOIL, STAKE LENGTH -TIT_ / LENGTH SHALL BE 4-5' it NATIVE SOIL I PLANT WITH DIBBLE OR METAL — III III BAR OF A DIAMETER SLIGHTLY III I LARGER THAN ROOT MASS. _ CAREFULLY COMPACT III—III= - CUT END ATA45 SURROUNDING SOIL. DEGREE ANGLE LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION NOT TO SCALE FINISHED GRADE FLAT PL COMPOSED( EXISTING SLOPE \ %1 TREE & SHRUB PLANTING ON SLOPES NOT TO SCALE HERBACEOUS PLUG, CONE, OR BARE ROOT HERBACEOUS PLANT 6" MIN. PLUG IN LOOSE, MOISTENED SOIL. BACKFILL CAREFULLY AROUND ROOT SYSTEM. NATIVE SOIL �BAREROOT, PLUG, ROOTED CUTTINGPLUG, ROOTED CUTTING NOT TO SCALE PLANTING NOTES 1. THE LIMITS OF WORK SHALL BE FLAGGED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING ACTIVITIES. 2. THE HABITAT RESTORATION LIMITS OF WORK EXTEND BEYOND THE GRADING LIMITS. WORK IN THESE AREAS INCLUDES CLEARING AND REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, REMOVAL OF THE TOP TWO INCHES OF SOIL (SECTION 800-1.13), PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO REMAIN, SOIL PREPARATION AND AMENDMENT, IRRIGATION AND REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS. 3. ALL AREAS TO BE PLANTED SHALL BE CLEARED AND GRUBBED OF INVASIVE SPECIES PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. PRIOR TO PLANTING, PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARIES SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD BASED ON ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ESTIMATED EXTENT ON SHEET Li BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE (RESTORATION ECOLOGIST) BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS FOLLOWING CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE STAKED LIMITS OF THE PLANTINGS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE (RESTORATION ECOLOGIST). 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES, MEASUREMENTS, AND SITE CONDITIONS. 5. A POST -GRADING MEETING WILL BE HELD TO REVIEW FINISH GRADING. 6. PLANTING PERIOD IS WEATHER DEPENDENT AND PLANTING SEQUENCE SHALL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO SOIL MOISTURE. T. ALL SEEDING ACTIVITIES SHALL CONFORM TO NORMAL LANDSCAPE INDUSTRY STANDARDS. INFERIOR SEED WILL BE REJECTED BY ENGINEER OR RESTORATION ECOLOGIST. 8. IF PURITY/GERMINATION RATES OF PROVIDED SEED ARE LESS THAN SPECIFIED, THE BULK POUNDS OF SEED PER ACRE SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED PURE LIVE SEED (PLS) PER ACRE. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTROL NOXIOUS OR INVASIVE WEEDS WHICH MAY DEVELOP ON SITE DURING WARRANTY PERIOD. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MORE INFORMATION. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED THROUGHOUT COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION WITH APPROPRIATE SEED MIX AND APPLICATION RATE AS PRESCRIBED IN PLANT SCHEDULE. 11. PLANTS SHALL BE PLACED IN GROUPS OF LIKE VARIETY. (EX. 25 ROSA CALIFORNICA OR 15 BACCHARIS SALICIFOLIA TOGETHER). W -I L— VERIFY SCALE 0 60% DRAFT L3 16 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 12 14-136 o v �Sw - -- •oma A ° a U d E~ -, f 61 2�^O e \ ry 26 000O O �4° ✓0 25 Q°025 —j�� ° O 3 p Qo CONNECT ONLOCAT ON N. 21182x.1042 ^ U f3 0 p0 E'898810d.093d LJ ao . t � � ° ° ;P • °o o ° a� e'. ° oQ o _IDe a Ooope of \ ¢ oa.e�r'3o—es�P�\ ON Q Gy z LEGEND- _� C _ � PHASE 2A BOUNDARY- i� POC PHASE 7 POINT OF CONNECTION '- __— Z. e _ PHASE 1 MAINLINE C PHASE 2A MAINLINE "..— CREEK CENTERLINE 6 40A6 I`Ox GO N 16 om Q SCALE (FEET) VERIFY SCALE IRRIGATION CONNECTION O 1" PLAN —E 1 - 3O 60% DRAFT L4 16 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13 14-137 / O\ D LEGEND C _ PHASE 2A BOUNDARY IRRIGATION MAINLINE —"'— CREEK CENTERLINE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION AREA 0 ov � �5 '0✓ �/� � �/ a'/��Y,� U � _ o C�✓ �/ � �j U � 4 �/ D e 35, b v � ,Z: � �/ v v 4 v v � v. v 3✓ v W �o UU vv\ UU v �� U ➢ a vU a o WQ¢ D O " o D IRRIGATION PLAN =E�-`3E� 0 25 50 100 IcxEo SCALE (FEET) VERIFY SCALE aGE 0 60% DRAFT L5 16 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 14 14-138 IRRIGATION NOTES 1. INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. 2. IRRIGATION PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. ALL IRRIGATION HEADS SHALL BE PLACED IN PLANTED AREAS AND VALVES PLACED IN SHRUB AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. FIELD ADJUST LINES TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH UTILITIES. 3. MAINLINE IS SHOWN BENEATH PAVING SURFACES AND OUTSIDE WORK LIMITS FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. ACTUAL LOCATION IN PLANTING AREAS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR APPROVED BY CITY. 4. IRRIGATION WATER OVERSPRAY OR RUN-OFF INTO THE CREEK SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. ADJUST HEADS AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT WATER FROM ENTERING WATER BODIES. 5. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERATION AND DESIGN ARE BASED ON A MINIMUM AVAILABLE STATIC PRESSURE OF 80 PSI AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION AND 120 GPM FLOW RATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE DESIGN PRESSURE AND VOLUME BEFORE INSTALLATION AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 6. THECONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY THE DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS BEFORE STARTING WORK AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLAN. 7. VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN, TELEPHONE, AND ANY OTHER UTILITIES ON SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND TIE-IN TO EXISTING PHASE 1 MAINLINE. MAINLINE SHALL BE EXTENDED FROM PHASE 1 INTO PHASE 2A ALONG ACCESS ROAD/TRAIL. 9. COORDINATE LOCATION OF REMOTE CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLIES AND SLEEVES. COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH OTHER TRADES INVOLVED. 10, ALL VALVES WILL BE PLACED IN VALVE BOXES INA MANNER THAT FACILITATES ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE. SIZE BOXES TO ACCOMMODATE COMPLETE VALVE ASSEMBLY. MAINTAIN MIN. 12" BETWEEN VALVE BOXES AND PAVED SURFACES. 11, ALL COMPONENTS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE COVERAGE AND MINIMIZE OVER SPRAY ONTO BUILDINGS AND PAVING, CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETE WORKING SYSTEM. 12. IRRIGATION LATERALS ARE SIZED STARTING AT VALVE AND CONTINUING IN DIRECTION OF FLOW. REDUCTIONS IN PIPE SIZE ARE LABELED BEGINNING DOWNSTREAM OF NEAREST FITTING. ALL LATERALS NOT SIZED ARE MINIMUM 3/4" OR SAME SIZE AS NEAREST ADJACENT PIPE. 13. CONTRACTOR TO MARK LAYOUT OF TRENCHES AND VALVE LOCATIONS FOR PREVIEW BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE INFIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL QUICK COUPLING VALVES AT POINT OF CONNECTION, AT EACH END OF MAINLINE, AND AT 200' INTERVALS ALONG MAINLINE. 15. ALL IRRIGATION LATERAL LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED ABOVE GROUND AND SECURED WITH PIPE STAPLES AT A MINIMUM INTERVAL OF 15'. THE MAINLINE AND VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE. 16. ZONES ARE SEPARATED BY PLANT/HABITAT TYPE. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH CITY OF NEWPORT TO ACCESS, TIE-IN TO AND EXPAND EXISTING CONTROLLER LOCATED NEAR THE P.O.C. THE EXISTING CONTROLLER HAS 36 STATIONS WITH 14 ZONES AVAILABLE FOR USE IN PHASE 2A AND CAN BE EXPANDED TO 48 ZONES. IRRIGATION LEGEND ROTOR HEADS GALLONS PER MINUTE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION NOZZLE GPM P.S.I. RADIUS HABITAT TYPE DESIGNATOR TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP1000-T 90 .20 45 14' TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP1000-T 180 .40 45 14' �i TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP1000-T 360 .80 45 14' Q TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP2000-T 90 .42 45 20' e TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP2000-T 180 .78 45 20' O TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP2000-T 360 1.56 45 20' 0 TORO 570Z -12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP3500-T 90 1.38 45 35' TOR0570Z-12P PRX COM E HUNTER MP3SIJ -T 180 3.10 45 35' TOR0570Z-12P PRX COME HUNTER MP3000-T 380 3.86 45 30' yy HUNTERRZWS-18-25-.11 (2 PER TREE) 0.25 45 1 EQUIPMENT SYMBOL DESCRIPTION REMOTPR11 E CONTROL VALVE: GRISWOLD DWSBRASS PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE ® BALL VALVE: MATCO 754N BRASS, LINE SIZE QUICK COUPLER: RAINBIRD 44 -NP NON POTABLE BRASS. SEE NOTE 14 HEREIN. MANUAL DRAIN VALVE, SEE SPECIFICATIONS LATERAL LINE, SCH. 40 PVC ----- MAINLINE, CLASS 315 PVC, SIZE: 3" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ------ SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLEEVE -6" MIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ® CONTROLLER: RAIN MASTER EVOLUTION DX2- FLOW, RADIO & ANTENNA (EXISTING) 36 ZONE MASTERVALVE: GRISWOLD 2000L (EXISTING) FLOW SENSOR: RAIN MASTER EVFM-2"(EXISTING) REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW: FEBCO 825Y - 2" (EXISTING) NOTES A. FL OW IN PIPING SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY. A. DEMANDS OF SYSTEM DESIGN SHALL NOT EXCEED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA OF WATER METER. B. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS GPM PIPE SIZE 0-7 314" 8-12 1' 1322 1-114" 23-30 1-12" 3150 2' 51-70 2-12" 71-110 3" PIPE SIZING - SCHEDULE 40 PVC W -I L_ 1"'"""' R—ERRE 1 60% DRAFT L6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 15 aF 16 14-139 GALLONS PER MINUTE 43.67 HABITAT TYPE DESIGNATOR VALVE SIZE B BIO RETENTION R RIPARIAN U UPLAND HABITAT TYPE T TREE BUBBLER ZONE NUMBER NOTES A. FL OW IN PIPING SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY. A. DEMANDS OF SYSTEM DESIGN SHALL NOT EXCEED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA OF WATER METER. B. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS GPM PIPE SIZE 0-7 314" 8-12 1' 1322 1-114" 23-30 1-12" 3150 2' 51-70 2-12" 71-110 3" PIPE SIZING - SCHEDULE 40 PVC W -I L_ 1"'"""' R—ERRE 1 60% DRAFT L6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 15 aF 16 14-139 U" I VALVE SC FLOW SENSC MAINLINE PIPE SIZE E TO FLOW BE MASTER CONTROL VALVE (EXISTING -FOR INFORMATION ONLY) NOT TO SCALE TER VALVE SING VALVE BOX SCH. 40 P.V.C. FITTINGS DRAIN ROCK UNDER VALVES LINE FROM METER CONTROLLER STAINLESS STEEL PEDESTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION s�meg, AS 2" CONDUIT -STATION WIRING w C 1"CONDUIT -COMMUNICATION D AC POWER CONDUIT MOUNTING PAD E 1"CONDUIT -SENSOR WIRING 28"X28"X8"MIN. ® 35"TOTALWITH ANTENNA CONCRETE PAD WITH TOP CLOSED G GROUNDING ROD BEVELED EDGES (4).5" DIA 14.5" BOLT HOLES PEDESTAL MOUNTING I16.� BOLT AND CONDUIT LAYOUT NOTES: 1) CONTROLLER SHALL BE RAINMASTER EVOLUTION DX2 WITH FLOW, RADIO, AND LOW PROFILE ANTENNA, 2) FLOW SENSOR SHALL BE RAINMASTER MODEL FS-BXX. CONTROLLER (EXISTING - FOR INFORMATION ONLY) NOT TOSCALE -QUICK COUPLER NOT TOSCALE PVC PIPE 8 FITTINGS UPSTREAM OF THE ISOLATION VALE TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS THE MAINLINE. ISOLATION VALVE SAME SIZE AS REMOTE CONTROL VALVE. QUICK COUPLER IN VALVE BOX WITH LID FINISH GRADE DRAIN ROCK MIN. 3" DEEP SCH. 80 NIPPLE BRICK OR CONC. BLOCK, TYP. SCH. 40 F/F THREADED ELL SCH. 40 MIS ELL. 3/4" IPS FLEX PVC HOSE GLUED TO ELL'S SCH. 40 M/S ELL. SCH. 40 TEE OR ELL., TYP. MAINLINE OR LATERAL LINE #4 REBAR STAKE FINISH GRADE VALVE BOX WITH LOCKABLE LID LATERAL LINE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITH 18" COIL OF WIRE 8 MALE REDUCER SCH. 80 NIPPLE IS X T) ISOLATION VALVE WITH MALE REDUCER SCH. 40 ELL. DRAIN ROCK MIN. 3" DEEP SCH. 80 NIPPLE BRICK OR CONIC. BLOCK SCH. 40 ELL, SCH. 40 TEE OR ELL., TYP. SCH. 80 COMPRESSION UNION REMOTE CONTROL VALVE NOT TOSCALE FLOW SENSOR MASTER VALVE GRAVEL PAVING DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY CLEAN AND LIGHTLY BALL VALVE � IN 20" — — E - � III —L=n i COMPACTED BACKFILL (LINE SIZE) MIN. MIN. TO CONTROLLER m 3" 24"MIN.—ll1=ll1- PE -3 CABLE _ TRACKING WIRE, 6" D EPTH G=III —III= 71I—I�I— G ABOVE MAINLINE M 3" MAINLINE — —III — " E=I IITII I� 11= EXISTING WATER METER (2"), STATIC —III--- _ SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLEEVE PRESSURE = 80 P.S.I. POINT OF CONNECTION / WATER SERVICE (EXISTING - FOR INFORMATION ONLY) IRRIGATION SLEEVE UNDER ROADS NOT TO SCALE � NOT TOSCALE VALVE BOX WITH LOCKABLE LID FINISH GRADE MALE ADAPTER/ REDUCER, BOTH SIDES MAINLINE GATE VALVE W/ WEDGED SEAL, EQUIPPED FOR KEYED OPERATION 4" MIN. DRAIN ROCK BRICK OR CONC. BLOCK SCH 80 COMPRESSION UNION VERIFY SCALE o IRRIGATION TRENCH 9 �. NOT TOSCALE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION W -I L- 1 -4 — L7 16��16 14-140 SCH 80 ADAPTER 8 FITTINGS TO BE BOTH SIDES SAME SIZE AS ISOLATION VALVE. ISOLATION/ BALL VALVE s NOT TOSCALE STAINLESS STEEL HOSE CLAMPS (TYP.) 3/4" GALV. RISER STRAPPED TO 6'-0" T -POST W/ HOSE CLAMPS T -T mil'. (2 ) SCHED.40 PVC STREET ELLS 36" 18" SCHEDULE 80 PVC MARLEX STREET ELLS (TVP.) PVC LATERAL LINE -1 E 1- E3 _ ul- - lul Wm �mW P-__ III -111 36"MIN. -nl Elnl -I-E3 NOTES 1. RAP FITTINGS W/ WRAP$ OF TEFLON 5 WRAPS OF TEFLON TAPE. 5 2. SWING JOINT SIZE SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS VALVE BOTTOM INLET. ROTOR ON HIGH RISER V NOT TO SCALE PIPE STAPLE FINISH GRADE _ LATERAL LINE I I—III—I I 24" MIN. J1-LI-� _ _—_ CLEAN AND DEPTHIII—III— 1l� III=III —III— III=III=1 COMPACTED BACKFILL TRACKING WIRE, 6" 1111=III= — = ABOVE PIPE IIII III=1 11=III=III_ =11I—III=11 � I I I � 11=III=III=III=1 MAINLINE VERIFY SCALE o IRRIGATION TRENCH 9 �. NOT TOSCALE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION W -I L- 1 -4 — L7 16��16 14-140