The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1 PARK NEWPORT MITIGATED NEG DEC111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* I Park Newport Mitigated Neg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GARY L. POSTED N 0 V 17 1999 Clerk•RecorderNOTICE OF DETERMINATION 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3200 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA. 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Sectior. 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone Na.: SCH# 99101045 _Javier S. Garcia _(949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 55. 1999 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency = Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project = will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. = An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were — were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations — was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were = were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200. i _ Ct✓"1 Javie S. Garcia, Senior Planner Filect Gary in the county or orange, rornia Gary L. Granville, Clark/Recorder r 19998501252 09;04am 11/17/99 856 6259319 06 52 203 1 1288.08 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 1999 FROM: Jay Elbettar, Building Director RE: Building Director's Acceptance and Approval of Negative Declaration Document in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Applicant — Park Newport Apartments, 1 Park Newport LOCATION: 1 Park Newport ACTION: Approval of the mitigated Negative Declaration for a slope stability and repair located at 1 Park Newport, the Park Newport Apartments. The Building Director finds that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence the project, as conditioned by the mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. AUTHORIZATION: Section 15356 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines the "Decision- maldng body" as any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. In this particular case, the project involves issuance of a Grading Permit by the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Section ,of 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that any advisory body (Planning Department representative in this case) of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision making body (Building Official) shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. The decision making body shall approve and adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. Attachments: Notice of Determination Negative Declaration and supporting documentation cc: Applicant Property Owner F.\USERS\PLN\ I PD-UP\PD•APPR\I PKNPT MEMORANDUM RESPONSE TO COMMENTS November 18, 1999 The following responses were received in regard to the posted Negative Declaration: Comments: 1. Acknowledgment of Receipt/ Distribution List Office of Planning and Research 2. Public Works Dept. City of Newport Beach Comments on Conditions of Approval Dept. Responsibility Conditions of approval/Mitigation Measures No. 1, 2 and 3 have been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure No. 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Deputy City Manager or designated Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Building Department. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November ofthat year. Mitigation Measure No. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by the property owner as determined by the City ofNewpon Bead: Building Department. 3. CalTrans: No Comments 4. California Dept. of Fish and Game Comment Letter attached Letter from the Dept. of Fish and Game raised concerns related to the coastal sage scrub habitat to be removed, revegetated and the contingency plans for failure of the process. There were also concerns related to the road closure, fencing to be constructed and duration of the closure and placement of fencing. Additional conditions of approval have been incorporated into the mitigation monitoring table and will be satisfied prior to issuance of the grading permit and during the course of construction and in conjunction with the multi -year monitoring program. Conditions of Approval 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as follows have been incorporated Mitigation Measure No. 5.1 Prior to issuance of the grading pennit the applicant shall provide, a. a site survey to quantify the take and revegetation amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. It. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi -year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location offencing (both chain link, orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right-of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the City proof of permission from the State far fence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. Mitigation Measure No. 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department offish and Game for road closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to notify users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure . It should state the reasons why, the suggested tittle line of the project and when the road nuty be re -opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Mitigation Measure No. 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant shall obtain written approvals front the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. Late Comments: The following comments were received after November 10, 1999: 5. California Regional Quality Control Board: Comment Letter attached Staff has revised the checklist document and the mitigation measures table to correct inconsistencies and to add the recommended requirements of the Regional Quality Control Board as follows: Mitieation Measure No. 4 The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director By � Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner cc: Building Director Negative Declaration File Attachments: Acknowledgment of Receipt/Distribution List, dated October 22, 1999 CalTrans Letter, dated November 4, 1999 Memorandum from the City of Newport Beach, Manager of Development Services, dated November 9, 1999 Letter from Dept. of Fish and Game, dated November 12, 1999 Letter from Calif. Regional Quality Control Board, dated November 10, 1999 0 STATE OF CAL IFOItNIA 0Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gray Davis STRI-ET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTII STREET ROOX1 222 SACRAMENTO, CAI I UM-% 95514 GO%L'RNOR MAILING ADDRI'SS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAXIENTO, CA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-301S �cw\c.opr.ca.go\ldearinghouse.htnil DATE: TO m ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT F OFPWN/ ot" a* % ��IroPCF.uso°� Loretta Lvnch DI RI CI nR October 22, 1999 RECEIVED BY Javier S. Garcia PLANNING DEPARTNIE�IT CITY Op !R�rb;Fpnc- City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd OCT 2 7 1999 P.O. Box 1768 Ahq PM Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 71819110 111 1 12 1 1 i21 3141616 1 Park Newport SCH#: 99101045 k This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: October 12, 1999 Review End Date: November 10, 1999 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission Caltrans, District 12 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED SY 3DISTRICT 12 ON DRIVE, SUITE100 PLANNING D[PAIRTME47 ®'< CITY n= IRVINE, CA 92612-0661 AM 14ov, 0 J 109J 1U11iti12 PM 789 III I I- I Ii�IYIG16 A November 4, 1999 Javier Garcia, Senior Planner IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH# 99101045 Planning Department ND 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Log # 636 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) — Park Newport Apartments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration (ND) for the Slope Stability and Repair Work proposed project for the Park Newport Apartments Complex. The proposed project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay and will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comments. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. S' c Eely, Robert F. Jo e h, C of Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR MEMORANDUM November 9, 1999 TO: Jay Garcia FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Park Newport grading After reviewing the subject document, there is one aspect which should be changed. The proposed Mitigation Measures 1,2 & 3 should be rewritten to delete reference to the Public Works Department. MM Nos. 2 & 3 are most directly associated with the Building Department as they relate to work on private property. MM No. 1 now falls to the Deputy City Manager. (I think he picked up the NPDES program at last night's City Council Meeting.) so] 11/12;1999 13:44 6194674239 CA DEPT FISH AND GAN PAGE Fly STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ _ _(;TRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5, South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 467-4201 FAX 467-4239 November 12, 1999 Mr. Javier Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration for Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments Dear NIr. Garcia: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Negative Declaration regarding the Slope Stability/Repair Work at the Park Newport Apartments Complex located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Department requests the following clarifications be made on the project prior to approval of the grading permit: The Negative Declaration does not quantify the amount of coastal sage scrub vegetation to be removed nor the amount to be revegetated. The document only states that a revegetation ratio of 2.5:1 will be used following the grading work that needs to be done to stabilize the slope. Please quantify both the take and the revegetation amounts. The document should provide revegetation plan details, such as timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi year monitoring scheme should be proposed. There should be a specified contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. The document discusses the installation of fencing at the toe of the slope. The Department requests the specific location(s) of the fencing (both chain link and the silt fence) in order to determine if the fencing will be on the State's Ecological Reserve property. If it is, the City will need to request authorization for fence placement and for construction access from the Department. Also, the City will need to provide a certificate of liability to the Department for tite duration that the fencing is in place. The Negative Declaration also states that there will be no public access -related issues because Back Bay Drive has been closed to the public since the winter of 1997. This is inaccurate. The City removed the barricades and began allowing public access along Back Bay Drive some months ago. This project will likely cause temporary impacts to Lhe public's use of Back Bay Drive. The Department requests that if the City intends on closing Back Bay Drive, it should do some public relations with the users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road will be closed to the public. It should staLe the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City should also enforce 11/12.11999 13:44 6194674239 CA DEPT FISH AND GAPE PAGE 06 Mr. Javier Garcia November 12, 1999 Page 2 this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department so we can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Finally, the document does not state that is has received approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the •Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service should be a condition of the Negative Declaration. In conclusion, the Department concurs with the proposed project if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily. The Department sees the slope stabilization and revegetation as a positive impact and a benefit to the species and habitats of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Questions and comments may be directed to myself at the letterhead address, or to Erick Burres, Reserve Manager, at (714) 377-0684. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Negative Declaration, Sincerely, F% ' Theresa A. Stewart Senior Biologist Land Management and Monitoring Program cc: C.F. Raysbrook, Regional Manager, San Diego Bill Tippets, San Diego Erick Buttes, Huntington Beach John Scholl, Newport Beach Jack Fancher, FWS, Carlsbad California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Winston H. Hickox interact Address: htip://www.swrcb.ca.gov Gray Davis Secretaryfor 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3339 Governor Environmental Phone (909) 7824130 • FAX (909) 781-6288 Protection November 10, 1999 Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEIVED BY PIANNIN G NPR RTM AC�l CITY OF N-• NOV 17 1111 pM Aim MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SLOPE STABILITY/REPAIR WORK (GRADING PERMIT) - PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS Dear Mr. Garica We have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration document for this project referenced above. There are Some inconsistencies with the information documented in the environmental checklist and the explanation sections of the document regarding environmental impacts associated with Geology and Hydrology. The following items are the inconsistencies discovered in the document: • In the Hydrology section on page 7 of the environmental checklist, environmental impacts 3 and 4, which are associated with the alteration of existing drainage pattern that may cause soil erosion and runoff, are marked "No Impact" and "and "Less than Significant Impact." However, the explanations that address 3 and 4 on page 9 illustrate "Less than Significant" and "No impact." • In the Geology and Soils section on page 6 of the environmental checklist, the environmental impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil (2) are marked "Less than Significant Impact." Consequently, the explanation that addresses soil erosion includes mitigation measures, which are illustrated on page 8; therefore, the environmental impact regarding soil erosion or loss of topsoil should be checked "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the environmental checklist section of the document instead of "Less than Significant." These inconsistent items mention above need to be address. If a Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit is required for the project, an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification must be submitted to the Regional Board office. California Envirowtiental Protection Agency ed Recycled Paper Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department - 2 - November 10, 1999 If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3221. Sincerely, —Tom B. Meregillano Planning Section cc: Mosie Boyd - State Clearinghouse File:O\\RB8WEBSR\VOL3\USERS\Planning\tmeregil\CEQA Comments\Neg-Dec & Mit Neg Dec-Comments\Oct 99\Newport Slope Stability 10-18-99.doc California Environmental Protection Agency cRecycled Paper CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and lone -term performance. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. �t A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this Ending is tr ! attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date Javier S. Oarcia Senior Planner F:\USERSXPLN\SHAREDIIPLANCOWENDINGNARKNPrNEGDEC r,m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM , Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area. The areas to the south, east, CHECKLIST Page 1 1Z Y and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Agricultural Resources 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance CHECKLIST Page 2 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ Javier S. Garcia Printed Name Gb g Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHAREDUPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPT2XCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 3 w Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Sighificant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated El I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ Q ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 4 5 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides or mudflows? u 101 C 0 u n ■ t7 ❑ 0 ❑ 1z 'ABM ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 5 M Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpo ted 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ �f defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ Q supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? V. HYDROLOGY. Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ()aICA drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CHECKLIST Page 6 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ Ltil drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 8) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ El hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ El significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mudflow? VI. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ E7j ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Ifnpact Mitigation Incorporated 3) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑' EZ ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ a substantial number of people? VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ access? 6) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ 1Z capacity? CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Vill. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? CHECKLIST Page 9 i0 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Idipact Mitigation Incorporated 6) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IX. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? 4) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ Q included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Ifnpact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 6) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CHECKLIST Page 11 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 67j Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ �f requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? CHECKLIST Page 12 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project' projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact L 0 0 C n 7 0 C A Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 11 0 0 0 0 C Lessthan Significant Impact No Impact 7 "�I ❑ 0 ❑ Bf ❑ 0 ❑ R1 +j ■ CHECKLIST Page 13 lU 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XVI RECREATION. 1) Would the project increase the u— of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreatiot facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facili would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require tt construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect t the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n n n M Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERSTLNISHARED\ I FORMSW EG-DECICK LIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST w The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department,ICity of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: I. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January, 9, 1990 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan MR, 1997. 10. South Coast air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 11. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 13. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 14, Grading Plan Review — Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 15. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park New portApartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. 16. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98-061113. July 1, 1999. 17. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9 18. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport IDunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July /7 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (509o) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Proeram/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Revised November 18, 1999 1 Would the proposed project: I. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to tite general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted far the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: I. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. Revised November 18, 1999 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Ponulation/Housine Would the project: I. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Revised November 18, 1999 Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. (b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. (C) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. (d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. Revised November 18, 1999 The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:' 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands2), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. Revised November 18, 1999 b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. Revised November 18, 1999 A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. Revised November 18, 1999 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is a corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitigation Measure No. 1 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading(construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Revised November 18, 1999 Mitigation Measure No. 4 The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide written approval of the erosion control plan by the Regional Quality Control Board. 5. Hydrology Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? Revised November 18, 1999 Less Than Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. Revised November 18, 1999 10 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Quality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than SignfficantImpact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. Revised November 18, 1999 11 To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: i On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturers specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. Revised November 18, 1999 12 d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure Revised November 18, 1999 13 to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. S. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. 7. Transaortation/Circulation/Parkine Would the project: <. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less titan Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Revised November 18, 1999 14 No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 8. Biological Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities Revised November 18, 1999 15 The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper mil, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less that: Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February 1 through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Revised November 18, 1999 16 No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the Revised November 18, 1999 17 preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have,a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Revised November 18, 1999 18 Mitieatiott Measure No. 5 A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. Mitigation Measure No. 5.1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide, a. a site survey to quantify the take and revegetation amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. b. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi -year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location of fencing (both chain link, orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right-of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the City proof of permission from the State for fence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. Mitigation Measure No. 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department of Fish and Game for road closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to notify users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure . It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Mitigation Measure No. 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the -applicant shall obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would Revised November 18, 1999 19 be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. Revised November 18, 1999 20 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. 5. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be Revised November 18, 1999 21 reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome nosie levels would not be significant 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Revised November 18, 1999 i*A Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public Revised November 18, 1999 23 services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will, result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 13. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Revised November 18, 1999 24 No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s GenerE Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect sigi applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, tc preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natu and cliffs. Revised November 18, 1999 25 Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Ope Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develop) 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic a Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less titan Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site Revised November 18, 1999 26 and its surroundings? Less than Significant Lnpact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 15. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Revised November 18, 1999 27 Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading Revised November 18, 1999 28 permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Revised November18,1999 29 Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Revised November 18, 1999 30 No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063 [c] [3] [D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. Revised November 18, 1999 31 so San Bernardino 605 60 Tj County J Los Angeles County 57 71 90 \ 91 5 91 •\ Riverside 15 County as 4os 55 Orange 22 L 5s 405 j County 41 133 / � c 73 f1 1 74 1 j I PROJECT ,ra SITE \ Q C. I ✓^ I t O f San Diego jr P County Q P 8/13/99(PNP830) 4';` N LSD 0Scale in Miles 3 6 Figure 1 Regional Location �''� S Af Ci ' ;`°`'Sb\ �''•'j;� /y ': �,'��., -44, t•�� \�;...- \` A e M1•1�•I t',' Sth r t+ Al ao Q\\ 1��6•`•,".7l'-�'•;�.. - _ ... Sall ,� •: l` Q C•a DD ators 15 Q rt i a ._. ;,.•• BACK � ' �- xe� ��u^•.._. �;••j� sll 1 ,�ilfi.eer. I �' . } •`, ,r,""�'"•+. ;t SIN.,,_ ;i qq�� _ J ....v 1 WI �y{ Pit / 4h�j % , � ,��.+," ;tiY"E'+, - .. � i!''•.7�.'.. l t-C. .\ �1-3 �r ' •'fit. �.' a / 9 \fir aS /A a H Parht n eh � � If D ( / ^Y 1 90 -. .:t+`lii1�T r, d 1t! + •F ` Colhnc �7 3a Source; U; 8/13/99(PNI 41% N LS Upper NewportBay en a mnioraooen� t4 . LSD scale in Feet —ter-- 0 75 150 S INXIM • ' Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site Approximate Slide Bolindaly ��i �OKMCpI � � - —'I••• - •` - � I 1 lO b _ --- @COOL �p f � _r@ACK:BAY-.DRI __ --T_I `-, 1'1' L� - I l !• - _•_ _ I--• + 1 - ye / - _ - _ - _ _, .. _ '--�_. "�-,.^ xsnn" ^ ��rwp� Imo•^.f"x .. ^n•• -' :p ::•\ -, ^-�/ / _ �'_ r �-'�ti^•`- •x "\ � ' tea. f ..� • � ' r .`a'��—` T v - , ::-�,\ '� \.. � I _ �. ... Aare, �;____ _ ----�- ; •. � � . _ • - _ ` - Source: RBA 8/13199fPNPR301 " LSh Scale in Feet 1�� 0 30 61 � LEGEND: �'•• .�'•"'' I Galaxy Park f;•;;•-• '. 2 Eastbluff Remnant S/-'? Y!t 3 Eastbluff Park a All I v �yy'II .R� �"�•i4'NNra{i Collins i�•s-_ Source: USGS 7.5' 1 i \•' ;%Ch I 0' .._•Sall 1't %/ E_.Ol "l',1 cov T J ram � Atl. ynu9l i > w e S + III "INj �^ °o � ••II��'•', b\y t`I '/\Hit f'�S Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin &Laguna Beach, Calif." 8/13/99(PNP830) •s?' N L A Scale in Feet ,A\1J' �11�� o I000 Zaoo ,I ?,' -lit n �n. u�ii • '„•'J PR tiia' Ia \ 73 Figure 6 View Locations 50- ,. LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering tion Habitat Restoration LSh Biology and oralands Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology May 25, 1999 Principals Mr, Loren Hays ' US Fish and Wildlife Service Rob Balen 2730 Loker Avenue West Brady Carlsbad, CA 92008 Les card Les C David Clore Ross Dobberteen Steve Granbohn Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Richard Harlacher Roger Harris Dear Loren: An Homrighausen Larry Kennings Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Laura Laffer Carollym Lobell Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. Bill Mayer These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. Rob McCann No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the Anthony Petrol completed survey forms are attached for your•review. The six surveys were made one Rob Schonboltz week apart, except between the -fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Malcolm J. Sproul Lloyd B. Zola Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly A s s 0 c i a t e s as possible so that it is completed, including the revegetation of the slide area, before the onset of the winter rains. 'They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- James Baum ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August Connie Calica Tung -then Chung, Ph.D. 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative Steven W. Conkling to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy Gary Dow rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff Jack Easton and cut the away the cryptogarnic crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and Rickard Erickson protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is m- Kevin Finrher Frank Hatchon stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further Clint Kellner scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Benson Lee Judith H. Malamut Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it Sabrina Nichol would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oh M. W. 'ConneB regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter Deborahh Pr Praalio Amy Skewes-Cox to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding Lynette Stanchina the permit process. fill Wilson O'Conner .r 525/99((P:\PNP8301gnatturveyltr.wpdN One Park Plaza, Suite 300 Telephone 949 553-0666 other offices located in Berkeley Irvine, California 91614-5981 Facsimile 949 553-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvine.lsa@lta-assoerom 53 0 • LSA Associates, Inc Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out -of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. If you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at (949)553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1114�1 � M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Restoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Rich Kevi Attachment 5n51990:trxa, Site: Inve •Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc.� No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad a CAGN/CAR SURVEY FORM stigators: Date: S 2/ Starting Time :,,,-Z/ 5� Stopping Time: 7 !Era Conditions (Veather & Temperature): / Start: 0 Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: / N� * Habitat type: ? /0 C� n a PI h4i e' E n a Po Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height C4/Fur G- J. r�/L�eza y/c 2. 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.SO 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: .Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants Comments: * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Orange County Parks and Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Property dated February 1n Taal by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. " * All habitat information, including dominant -plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be " collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATC/TIER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY PROJECTNA, E 1. Location of (Ite survey area: 2. Dascrlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wag tape vocalization used (if at all):, 7� „ �{ d. Total number of surveys: �p • Dates S 2/ Blolo Isl s O Cam,., We Iher Temperature o Acres Surveyed Per Blologlst par Day Route Used 99 �•� G o / GZ 3 R 0-,? Ad �- 6. Gnatcatcher sighling(s):' Number Age.. Sex 6. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):• Number Age.. Sex 9 7. Provide a qualitative description of the, plant co munitles (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the � i survey area: SaC 4� SY99 P n•—:?, 'See map for locatlon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesiling, and unknown I Page 1 ,n Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad a Site: Inves Date: Starting Time: D Stopping Time: % Z S Conditions (weather & Temperature%: Start: G z G Stop: i 3 to c/o G ✓ Species observed: CAGN / CAwR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / UnknOvn Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant (A Rel. Cover 1. �,,..��n!' t/d- mac/ O"�Yn�t4 'y0"yovy 3. C/f/M C 5, I YnIG �+ 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 6 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants ts: * Use John Is Habi 0 70 ,.80 90 100 35-b0 test Inc. X herb cover: dated May 1992 prepared by ...e., tha vpdptation of Ora: * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.. 57 1994 COASTAL CALIFO NIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) � CONDUCTED BY'_ ./%C-,,ri. r �/ • •'- PROJECT NAMEr 1. Location of Ills survey area: 2. Description Of survey methods: 3. How frequently wad tape vocalization used (if at all): d. Total number of surveys: e_ Mi e Dates s�y9r • Blolo Ist s ✓3,� dCc4-..,P� Weather C �d'� TemperalWe (' 30 Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Da 3 yam. Route Used e�d��s /3� �ke 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):' Number AW.Sex 7. Provide a qualitative description o) the survey area: __ Sc- 4/111 7 6. Brown-hoadod cowbird sighting(s):' Number Ana— Sex communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the - eTe A,2,� 'See map for locatlon(s). 'Age categorles to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. 44 I Pago 1 x Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon -No. Mapped loc. No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEY FORTS Investigators: %3, Q Ca Date: SGT Starting Time: G;?o Stopping Time: Conditions (Weather & Temperature): Start: S� F Stop: r� �� Gee ✓ Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknovn Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: Dominant Plant( 1. �ilGe/G _4� "aY rrCC� 2. fj% e C 6 e-.cc ttiS 3. 4. GROUP - No. Individuals / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Rel.. Cover d e 30 Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 X gap: % bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants r agora,... Avg. Height - rcef /71 .80 90 100 X herb cover: 35-60 >6 ... / Tr.. . iU CN n� * Use Orange Coungig Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of orange11 County Parks and'Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Property dated Fe ruar 10, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. e or n/4 5y' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE� SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY �� r� �', .P // •• PROJECT NAME `a, %r/Vpzr /n os/,�P /r�c,y 1. Location of the survey area: 2. description of survey methods: 3. How frequently was tapb vocalization used (if at all): Q—7 jo /0 �wY� 4. Total number of surveys: Dates ' elolo Ist s Weather Temperature Acres Surveyed Per elolo Ist Per Day Route Used S6/ /s,/ O 'CB--t- G/ mor:� Vann y s-y °f= 3 171, /o 4. a— ►c- S. Gnatcatcher slghting(s):' Number AIN..Sex 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):' Number Age.. Sax 7. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (Include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: _ Se e- _ s ,. e, , re ru ,�` ' n)1'. d -40A rf y *See map for Iocation(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 O • Survey No. Polygon Ho. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ou�Ld CAGN/CAVR SURVFT FORK Site: Investigators: Dater Starting Time: 4 ; y5-�/�I Stopping Time: �;DO ///% Conditions (Veather S Temperature): / Start: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: ) / * Habitat type: 2,10 P c e �o G�er,�laoa� / b Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height _�//_� /u- c0 -S- eaA 2. a0 0 3. �� ci • , Gu , ,uniavr, 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 % gap: % bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 J r Other important plants M 7 �CUC �� SVeLJQi� +i�a <u�carniw C',t t n 4 ? � Te-.-• .Si 'moo _,Q P r I7 tG � � 1. �• J 'r �^ / -h_ d' r f 7- f r j Allnn / it / ., - _.. -> e . eSt S a raw ��rrewf i * Use Or a County's Habitat Classification System datedyMa�1992 prepared by John Gray and David Sramlet and Methods used to Surveythe Vegetation of Oran e County Parks and Open Space Areas and The rvine Company PropertZ dated February 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' �� - /. I. PROJECT NAME! 1. Location of ihs survey area: 2. Description of survey methods: a. How frequently was tape vocalization used (If at all): 4. Total number of surreys: Date s 131010gist s 5. Gnatcatcher sighting(s) Number Am" Sex 7. Provide a r survey area: plant communities _41 ur rer uay Route Used F. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):• Number Age.. Sax ' to dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the ry�? . 'See map for locatton(s). 'Age categorles to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently Iledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. 0 G Page 1 • *Survey No. Site: Inve Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVRT FORM i stigators: .�� r.:.,.�e// I Date: 2 Starting Time: Co;5-0 Stopping Time: 8.7-5- Conditions (Veather S Tem�errature)J Start: S� /— C%-, � Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CA" Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals_ Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: Dominant Plant Rel. Cover 1. �nre/a. C4/r #�er hiGC� 2. 3. !,� i�rn GG��urnicvti S v Avg. Height ee f ec T 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 ® 100 % gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 Other important * Use Orana County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Orange County Parks and Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Pro ert 'dated Februar 10, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCI IER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY . /_:Z, // n Y's . _ // - PROJECT NA. E:etc„— 1. Location of the survey area: 2. tie§crlptlon of survey methods: S. How frequently was tape vocalization used (lf at all): Al. Total number of surveys: 6— Dates Blolo 1st s Weather Tom eralure Acres Survayad Per Blolo Ist Per Da Route Used yZ2 Q� �i//l� GQisnP�� G Oti / SC9u. ? t / 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):" Numtwr Age" Sex 7. Provide a qualitative descrlpti%9•n of the plant surveyarea: Sea _< $19 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):' Number Age Sax • (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 3 'See map for locatlon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 • Site: Inves • Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc.-No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAQR SUR9R7 FORK Date: Starting Time:_[, ' 2 S'//'� Stopping Time: y,'yo i4/7 Conditions (Weather 6 Temperature): /� / Start: Jr.� �i�Li/sG/--�e 0 ", avw-Z04 Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAUR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: // / * Habitat type:.? /D rreela-- Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height ( 1. ( - i. /• P (0. C 6 'f U r..ie fig d D - C- f r 2.9i/ �h Cri.eSGehS — 3v % S�-G 1� /n�rtfy / -2 Foe / 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 (2p 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Other important plants Use John t a /I, X' uU+e2/lt4TeCi'C-p.��,lr�lJH/ ssification System dated M / :,�,:a,ti rs /�0%4. Sc%Cornea re j•O. o- yCd �G�71 prepared by .71 tion of Orange 10, 1993 by Jones A Stokes Associates, inc. Or All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' Z�S, // Q `/'�„�� ' • // PROJECT NA, E: %Oc,- /r /r r cue 1. Location of the survey area: ��; % ��, Y �, n., , 7, 2. D"crlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently was tape vocalization used (if at ail): 4. Total number of surveys: _6 11� T Dates Biolo Ist s Weather Temperature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Roule Usegd �3./ CJ'Co A�? ur/ Tv C/vv y f5'F 3 g �� %e �Jo`' 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number Age..- Sax 7. Provide a qualitative survey area: Al,. �,, 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Number Ana" Sex species and habitat and adjacent to the 'See map for tocatlon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. 07 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date 4. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval goading permit Public Works subject to the approval of the Deputy City Manager or designated Program monitoring Department Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading established prior to the Engineer, issuance of grading Condition of Plan Check and permit Publie Works 2. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Approval routine monitoring by Program monitoring Department completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected property owner established prior to the during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be issuance of grading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Building Department All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November l of that year. Condition of Plan Check and Public Works Approval marine monitoring by Program monitoring Department 3. 7be constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by property owner established prior to the the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach issuance of grading Building Department. permit Condition of Plan Check Public Works 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation approval Prior to the issuance of Department control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local grading permit and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable smdons). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide written approval of the erosion control plan by the Regional Quality Control Board S. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. approval grading permit Department and the Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the Planning Department coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the startof comtmetion The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist farruliar with coastal sage scrub, habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in Page 1 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Tinting of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works 5.1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide, Approval grading permit Department and the Planning Department a. a site survey to quantify the take and revegetafion amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. b. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a mulfi-year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetafion is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location of fencing (both chain link, orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right- of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the Stale of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the City proof of permission from the State for fence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Approval grading permit Department and the 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall Planning Department coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department of Fish and Game for mad closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to notify users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the mad may be re,opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works approval grading permit Department and the 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant Planning Department shall obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. Page 2 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15,1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Pelson Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date 11. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuanceof Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Secthm[0.28.040 approval grading permit 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archcological/palearrological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shalt determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper a plomtion and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. r:tUJCKZiWLNIZHAKHU\t PLANUUM%FENDINOIPARKNPIIMTMSRTAB Page 3 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 12, 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. -7r .M A. 2. W1 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 General Information Applicant/Agent: Gerson, Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 659-1621 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 Property Owner: Richard Ellis, Gerson, Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 659-1321 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 Proiect Description Please attach the following materials for the project: (See separate Initial Study/Negative Declaration) • Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scale • Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 81/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map strikeeut notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: Park NewportApartments Clubhouse Slide Modification Project 2. Project location: Back Bay Drive near San Joaquin Hills Road 3. Assessor's parcel #: 4. Permit application #: 5a. Proposed use: Slide stabilization 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc.) : 0.63 acre 5c. Site size: 5d. Building height: Not applicable 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: Residential/OVen Space Zoning: Multi-family/Recreation and Env. Open Space Specific Plan: LCP: 7. Previous governmental approvals: Existing Coastal Permit 8. Other governmental approvals required: Federal: State: Coastal Commission Regional: Local: 5tm Begin construction: _ (date) Estimated occupancy: (date) \URV04\PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC q 3�6�5_ C. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate 'Not applicable" or "None". Please refer to Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared separately for this project. 1. Land Use and Planning Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the projects conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. 2. Population/Housing/Employment a. If the project is residential; please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the average household size expected. b. If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. 3. Earth (Geologic Problems) Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. 4. Water Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater levels or bodies of surface water. Is the project located in a flood hazard zone? 5. Air Qualfty Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Please describe how the project will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project. 7. Biological Resources Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Describe the affect on any adopted energy conservation plan, use of nonrenewable resources and whether the project will result in the loss of any known mineral resource of future value to the region and residents of the State. 9. Public Health and Safetv Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? \URV041PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC 10, Noise Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise -generating equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? 11. Public Services Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Maintenance of Public facilities, including roadways • Other Government Services 12. Utilities and Service Systems Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Natural gas • Communications Systems • Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities • Sewer systems or septic tanks • Storm water drainage systems • Solid waste and disposal Police protection • Local or regional water supplies 13. Aesthetics Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? Light and Glare Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources Please indicate whether any archaeological or paleontological surveys have been done on the site. Could the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? 15. Recreation Describe the impact of the project on the demand for neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities and any affect on existing recreational opportunities. \URV04\PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. 1 Robert Balen, Principal, LSA Associates Date clAMW Print name of owner or representative and Title Signature For Office Use Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: Rev. 5-28-99 OIRV04\PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT S ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES S 3300 NEWPORT BLVa e" P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9266E-8915 G«aoa�+`r RECEIPT NUMBER: 01000439025 RECEIVED BY: PERRY 1 PAYOR: LSA ASSOCIATES INC TODAY'S DATE: 10/08/99 REGISTER DATE: 10/11/99 TIME: 16:23:23 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIV ONE PARK NEWPORT $354.00 ---------------- TOTAL DUE: $354.00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANGE $.00 $354.00 26936 $354.00 $.00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 BUILDING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3288 FEE RECEIPT Date O e Plan Check No. Received By: ell � ipeow f .A— R000:vn`1 Frnm Job Address Building Plan Check......................................................................2900-5002 $ Zoning Plan Check (Architectural)...............................................2700-5003 $ Zoning Plan Check (Grading).......................................................2700-5003 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds...................................................... 2900-5004 $ FirePlan Check.............................................................................2330-5055 $ Electric Plan Check.......................................................................2900-4612 $ Plumbing Plan Check....................................................................2900-4616 $ Mechanical Plan Check.................................................................2900-4618 $ Overtime Plan Check - Building...................................................2900-5023 $ Overtime Plan Check - Grading....................................................2900-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - Planning..................................................2700.5003 Preliminary Code Compliance Review..........................................2900.5002 Reinspection B E H P/Special Inspection.....................................2900.5008 Reinspection Fire ............... Temporary Electric ................................. Temporary Gas ....................................... Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ..... Underground Utilities Waiver ............... .................................2330.5050 .................................2900-4612 .......................................2900-4616 ......................2900-5008 .......................010-2225 GreaseInterceptor .........................w...........L..................................2900.4620 Planning Department Fees.... K.!!,1!" �.. 5 �!4c '1 ��`* 2700.5000 Sale of Maps & Publications ....................... PAID ............. .............2700-5812 Determination of Unreasonable Hardship...................................2900.5018 Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............. n.Oa..1999................... 010-2263 Other (Specify) .............................. MY-OFtE WPORl.-I'Cz t... TOTAL FEES Fee Receipt No. NOTICE: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMITTAL (f\feerept.198) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS CLUBHOUSE SLIDE MODIFICATION August 19, 1999 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach I 60 San Bernardino 605 60 County 'J rLosAngeles County 57 71 \ 91 so 5 91 \ Riverside 15 County 38 \4os 55 Orange 22 �1 �2 1 5 —� 55 aos j County 241 133 0 73 1 74 1 % 1 PROJECT ,its SITE � r I c+ i � 1 San Diego County 0 v 5 �a i ' 8/13/99(PW830) ' Scale in Miles LSA -- 0 3 6 Figure 1 Regional Location \ ��, a �'_'s ( /• .�,�_-�::%:� .-T'«r��1' .,�• �g/��,��:,%-�.�-,R•\�o�c''� - --`=- y,�iLind✓',y�itel ,-- In l I l,"`+ -�%�'' _` — _•_ "N!. :: ...P/ / -, "ll.�. •\1^:: :v�."r�"': ��y�:�W ,%/'• .-row.:/ � �/ti .�\`11, 'i. tl�n�1:•245��Y\ ,�'.nc '"t!.. :� ? C '{ y�.`I Q ::..rj5�.:_ ,•;?':,�, AP Salt si U \ f. i ''�}l4:,: �`.;1-..,, V •_G,r. rv4..n{r'. EvaporaC�orS ?Ili: •';✓ `lt�� it. i` ' .:i�;i(i'ri'i"•i ;fif?i1�5, ., :.'i. �,S I •;C l\ f ��' a'::-y i 4.L /�• �' `%•. .,. ..` ` _ m , .c�a ., yl. a 15 10 ms '1F�ltar� ,. ,- �,-�.�� Ql �� ... .Qt � I•� 11ij 'Q7 a�\c` V`� -`e / fiq►'iY' I e t v F '' Ar '@t� t �;:' pYi i C1• `r , ♦•r. .. m' 0,: v- bpv.. axe_;•'» �, It•1i14't. p`Q1p��+tir • ••.•� i♦a T tW .)Q� b ♦\44 T �7/ I, ,rl_�I . ' ,//� �/' a o � �r ,7T �'`i 'i-�.!! ♦, ♦ (eh 5cl�� '\.' f� \♦^ Aar' ;1;��j �1. 1 ` � �;'dii U/•.,� a`.�� ,,. , .I ' ' ne 1=� � re a A`�, I81 (� L _�Td(•"_ -:w - � ./�h,'''3y. 4,'♦. BLUFF& SLIDE i' REVEGETATION ' `. .. J.^' 1 ti`y.i"' �'C f' �t N t\I� (• �/, �Y `1 IA •4, .�`.�`` i /,:Y�•. KO_"`. ��„ q�•� . ,, I . 1 LLL/// , , �r \.., `li'rt, • ('gin._ �'+j�- ,J ,�(, I\ ., r .�i):'�!�\ � .� � jj//� /�j' � ,fa��\,,'','S�`�ot•�\l.zzL111 !,,; �: / fr � y `; •.�f•al.,.C�c � '.,~+',,�,� ,,�•i: i• ,l:� / ^ � �(i r4 r ` , \, I 1 g�"�, � i • .�;Mvki`�#'�� L•. .I .� ri «; `11_,l l�� 'T •./r `�•� �i'�1z i� '_••\�y '�d' �,*"..+ , ',\tc,�. �1.. � (��.; •'•.�`+'�, �C. '�vs' ��`' /,''i ~� j �� CAI /r �n .� r , �^^ I v \ \ CO��T ��r .rV ' L`,��I'q�``�\`�\y�/, Sch��%s±� I • `. � Dome-- as `—^�"` _./Y� `_'� a�` \/it •\ "�\�'• - Colli—_'Ba Source: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin & Laguna Beach, Calif.": • `r';,'• �' ' 8/13/99(PNP830) Figure 2 41). ' N LScale in Feet S • ' 1/�1/'1 1—�00 2000 Project Location y1 r Upper Newport Bay 25/13/99(MF83U) LSh a Scale in Feet �- iso lfi � Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site � t f F iks R a Apprnsiuuile..Sl ide ' Bouudurl —• w1E 't > ;�yf�{.y, i. •�{ay lH`n�xsil�' ^.t "}af. *�i �.' s..._ .!. _ m m a Source: RBI 8/13/99(PNPf N:� LSD Seale in Feet 30 60 Grading Plan l " -`rt��. ` r'�..Y t%Z� , 'Y O �. .- J•' „ t� � i F JS i 1 � ,� 1 LEGEND: /�' ,;.•s1;Y .<rid c,S• rL/%::..=J1 -- - 1 Galaxy Park .. �.> J - �i'I ,• :}- .:. \'. 2 Eastbluff Remnant ` w, --' �'<<' ` ,[.s�j / ----- 3 Eastbluff Park 0 7} y ` 1r.{• b P .. �, Salt �,•'':,�1 0l Y �, , Evaporakors 1'Fi,,,. Y;,1 • j`•.:. .;{{!'� .::••fat••. CK j 8 •=..•'-i:,...,::`:�, h c.� a } i,. 1 II �� . . N :t�ilf, v r}}:, «„ �;,;,1�('•.r • � ^..`.`._ v. '' -s;, ,V W I Pit � �•Cr Y"s�.'�'l•i'1$\, -,d5'�,_ ``tCvr i t' s icq�'•qy,,�'.� �F ..x,X 1 % a j0.: • � `- ^ l •`i,;;>_,7;n,��".ti t.'r�?>;;r. = 1 S(lj�'t ,, �'�" y '�, � ,1. ' `\d'' ' la lr5•`N°�\.il"n(a: �, � n ql} \ �I,', xi,^.lff+a``C�diy'a��aJri.�/ `y1,(�A'"� . 3 . 0 � • ` taUA' 1'i �', 00 rz fH��q• •Irl' A silpj j t �(, t J� �T, � -�y,. •�f� ?4` (• ;, •�y'II y�—, i 4l ,i5".'I`it't. • i.. t •, S ' �W „ �. ,� .`c•I',. ^. ... /, I''-• 4f .�•,I s �',�, �^ }'' Ymrona del Mar \ ( �r, �',k •I. 1 � � w v .2y ,tip ,h{L • gA sc ':� .I � (1 1•\`}1;\� �1'�', •Aal1� r 5 �I .1� S�t1 •,t, � / . j ♦ !_ d �1 (iij V./...,� y Rl `T ,'C . .i 1 — BLUFF REVEGETATION �•'' J�Ji t wp),, '.i ?,. .� / . do dim .rll,,' �:T:.,",�:,•`'��'" " tiA�i,ST?,. ) ; .2 '! ..VC l 71 ''.\ ( ri(r �. ` \\ �J ®pt. •y��i a� `"�c'�'rl .- - ,\ 1 .:';•�" o r'(j/�/i:' ';lv`,._,-�'�a. i�\ "-.ni'. .j�=l•'.xjs�•-: J, �-}�,t��a t.'�,f � I^�' �i � jl`4`• : 1;,t'lli `;i^�, , ` ; '' � `i iZ2 ,,;, _L11,,, I .., ,, `.In�:3'' f�' JI ��;.�\�\ ��tC;+{l � •-�''.,"`y 1•-�, � �I �-.`.'.,, �tSJ 1 /r ,cy�ilr;+ 5 .',w ; �� '•- air' 1 _colltns _ _—Beacon ____ -_- .•; , es .\ h T -ra � � \{�>� J(:% `i�3 B6 fis.JIpI-r�,1f7L'_1:.U[(U9y A�IF e s I�It Ita`�•\ x � ' I� tk � �`� 'Po � E �.� ��• ^�"' , 1 Source: USGS 75' Topographic Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin & Laguna Beach, Calif." :;• ; , "f,�l'i' �l - '/ 8/13/99(PNP830) Figure 6 IN LcA Scale inFeet ' •1\✓1 1� o 2000 View Locations I ' INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS CLUBHOUSE SLIDE MODIFICATION PROJECT ' August 19, 1999 ' Preparedfor: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 (949) 644-3210 Prepared by: LSAAssociates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 ' LSA Project #PNP830 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 11 I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1-1 CONTACT PERSONS ....................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2-1 2.2 LOCATION ............................................ 2-1 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................ 2-1 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ 2-4 2.5 REQUIRED PERMITS/APPROVALS ....................... 2-8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .......................... 3-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES ................................ 4-1 4.1 AESTHETICS .......................................... 4-1 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES . ........................... 4-5 4.3 AIR QUALITY ......................................... 4-6 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................ 4-10 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................. 4-14 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................. 4-16 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............. 4-21 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................... 4-23 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................ 4-26 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................... 4-27 4.11 NOISE .............................................. 4-28 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................... 4-30 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................... 4-31 4.14 RECREATION ....................................... 4-33 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ......................... 4-34 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS . .................. 4-36 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............ 4-38 4.18 EARLIER ANALYSES ................... 4-39 5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING .1-i REPORT PREPARATION ................................ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ................................ 5-1 APPLICANT............................................... 5-1 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................ 6-1 ATTACHMENTS A - Gnatcatcher Surveys 8/17/99«P:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) iii LSA Associates, Inc. LIST OF FIGURES 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - PAGE Regional Location Map ...................................... 2-2 ProjectLocation ............................................ 2-3 Site Plan of Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Area ............ 2-5 Site Photograph of Existing Slide Area .......................... 2-6 Site Grading Plan ........................................... 2-7 CoastalViews .............................................. 4-3 8/171990PAPNP830Wideisn LSA Associates, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guide- lines, this Initial Study has been prepared as documentation for a Negative Declaration for the proposed slide modification project at Park Newport Apartments in Newport ' Beach, California. The project proposes to remove and stabilize a 0.63 acre slide area along the coastal bluffs at Park Newport Apartments above Back Bay Drive in the City ofNewport Beach, County of Orange, California. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed ' to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in Decem- ber, 1997. Back Bay Drive provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as ' well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Follow- ing slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at ' a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby,providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers, as specified in a proposed habitat restoration plan, which is an integral part of the project. The Negative, Declaration and the accompanying Initial Study evaluate the potential "project" level of environmental impacts that may result from the development of the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and is responsible for approval of the environmental documentation. The City will then submit the documentation to the Coastal Commission for subsequent ap- proval of the project. tCONTACT PERSONS Any questions regarding the preparation of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration, its assumptions, or conclusions should be referred to: Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3206 �I CIS ' 8/17/99«P:1PNP8301slideisnd.wpd)> 1 1-1 M Associates, Inc. I 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION The project proposes to remove and stabilize a 0.63 acre slide area along the coastal bluffs at Park Newport Apartments. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has remained closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. The slide's instability poses a threat to the road and to light-footed clapper rail habitat. The project proposes to excavate the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 2.2 LOCATION rThe project site is located along the coastal bluffs at Park Newport Apartments above Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project location. 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Physical Characteristics The project site is located along the coastal bluffs above Back Bay Drive. The slide poses a threat to several wildlife species present in the bay, such as the light-footed ' clapper rail utilizing the salt marsh habitats on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide area contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. Surrounding Uses The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area. The areas to the south, east, and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. I8/17/99KPAPNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 2-1 I ' LV Assoclates, Inc. 2.4 PROJECTDESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vege- tation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site ' from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restora- tion Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities ' and long -tern performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineer's plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. ' Scope of Work The project will consist of the following scope of work: • Installation of fencing, i.e., chain link and silt fence. ' Removal of all remaining vegetation and debris from the slide. • Excavation of the slide. • Installation of snow fence and signs at upper and lower edges of project to prevent access by pedestrians. • Spreading and incorporation of seed over 0.63. acre. • Installation of 160 container plants. • Hydroseeding of the site. • Maintenance of the 0.63 acre site until the performance standards have been met. Project Schedule Prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (on or about August 15, 1999), all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal California gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. The site shall be kept weed free until the time of vegetation installation. Installation shall be completed between October 1 and No- vember 15, 1999. The maintenance period shall begin upon the completion of the ' installation and shall continue until the performance standards have been met. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that I8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 2-4 1 M Associates, Inc. I 1 1 1 1 no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. All material resulting from this activity shall be appropriately and legally disposed of off site. Prior to excavation, a temporary chain link fence shall be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. In addition, a silt fence shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. In order to prevent the public from walking through the restoration areas, an adequate amount of four foot high snow fencing shall be installed to prevent access to the restoration area. In addition, the fencing will be posted with small signs stating "Native Plant Restoration Area, Please Keep Out." All work shall be confined within the limits of grading noted on the plans. Following grading, all temporary fencing shall be removed. 2.5 REQUIRED PERMITSIAPPROVALS Coastal Commission - The project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit will be requested by the City of Newport Beach. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 2-8 7 LSA Assodales, Inc. II II II 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Park Newport Apartments Slide Modification 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: Jay Garcia Planning Dept. (949) 644-3206 4. Project location: Along the coastal bluffs above Back Bay Drive and below apartment complex, City of 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: Residential / Open space 7. Zoning: Multi -family / Recreational and Environmental open space 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessarv.) 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coastal Commission - Coastal Development Permit ' 8/17/99((P:1PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 3-1 LSAAssociales, Inc. I F I n ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems 11 Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic 11 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: aI find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEG- ATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ElI find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ElI find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation mea- sures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ElI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEC- LARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are unposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Jay Garcia Printed Name City of Newport Beach For ' 8/17/99((P:U'NP830\stideisnd.wpd)) 3-2 H LSA Associates, Inc. ' EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by ' the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., ' the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than t significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) `Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Signifi- cant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce ' the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed -in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: ' a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable ' legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. ' c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. I 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 8/17/99<(P:1PNP830\slideisnd.wpdH 3-3 ' LSA Associates, Inc. ' Less Than Significant ' Potentially Significant Impact with Mitigation Incn,pomted Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ El a Elto, ' trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of El El Fx Elthe site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would El El El' EZ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether im- effects, pacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evalua- tion and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as'an optional model to use in assessing im- pacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ El ❑ RX Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pre- ' pared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural ' use? b) Conflict existing zoning for agricultural use, or a William- with El ❑ Elson 51 Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to El ❑ Eltheir Fx location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? es- 3. AIR OUALITY -- Where applicable, the significance criteria tablished by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tions. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ ' quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an El ❑ 51 El ' or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria El ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an ' applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1 8/17/99KP:\PNP830ls1ideisnd.wpd)) 3-4 I LSA Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 III i 1 1 i 1 1 1 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra- tions? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habi- tat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensi- tive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than significant Potentially Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El El 51 El El El El El b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other El❑ ❑ El sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologi- cal resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ef- fects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ❑ ❑ ❑Fx-1 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 El El El Ed R El El 51 8117/99((P:\PNP830k11deisnd.wpdH 3-5 1 I LSAAssocia(es, Inc, Potentially significant Less Than significant With bhtigafion Less Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most issued by ❑ ❑ Ed 0 recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Ge- ology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 ❑ Fx1 0 3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 ❑ 0 4) Landslides? 0 ❑ 0 _ F b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 ❑ Fx1 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ ❑ El a would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life El ❑ 0 51 or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ 0 F tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ma- terials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely haz- ardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 OD 0 0 Cl 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd>> 3-6 LSA Associates, Inc. t L 1 1 II Less Than significant Potentially significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the in ❑ El Elproject FxJ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted El El ❑ Ed emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or El Eldeath El Fx involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge require- ❑ ❑ ❑ Ed ments7 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substan- be ED tially with groundwater recharge such that there would a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run- off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capac- ity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or pro- vide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? INS g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on El a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El impede or redirect flood flows? IN-00 e D El Fix] El D El El El Eil 8/17/99<(P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 3-7 LSA Associates, Inc. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9. - LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than significant m6gation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El El El 51 a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ a b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of El agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not El Elan limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)- Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural El ❑ 51 ❑ community conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 11. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordi- nance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t Ed El D 51 51 EJ 1-1 El F ' 8/17/99«P:NPNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 3-8 LV Assoclales, Inc. ' Less "an significant ' the Potentially significant Impact With Mitigation Incoryoratcd Less nan significant Impact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would El❑ Elproject FxJ expose people residing or working in the project area to texcessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: ' a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly indi ❑ El ❑ FxJ (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or - rectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infra- ' structure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ El ❑ ' the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace numbers of necessitating the con- c) substantial people, EZ struction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. SERVICES PUBLIC -- a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered gov- ernmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern- mental facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ' 1) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' 3) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 51 4) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ S) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 51 II 14. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and El ❑ Elregional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be acceler- ated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the El El Elconstruction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 8/17/99«P:\PNP8301slideisnd.wpdN 3-9 LSA Associates, Inc. Len Than Signiacant Polendally with Less Than significant Wigation Signifcant No Impact Inwtpomled Impact Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ FX ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersec- tions)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ Fx ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an in- in El ❑ ❑ a crease in traffic levels or a change in location that results sub- stantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ Fx curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Fxl f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ FxI g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ F] Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con- ❑ ❑ ❑ Fxl struction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drain- ❑ ❑ ❑ age facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded ❑ ❑ ❑ FxJ entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑FXI which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capac- ity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ac- FxI commodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 8/17/99(LP9PNP830lslideisnd.wpd>> 3-10 LSA Associates, Inc. P, 1 C g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commu- nity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan- gered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fu- ture projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less7han Significant Ntigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 ❑ ❑ 0 El El El Fx_1 El El El Fix] ' 8/17/99((P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd» 3-11 LSA Associates, Inc. ' 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES ' 4.1 AESTHETICS ' Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy ' documents. The City's General Plan Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect significant public views. The applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. ' Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map. Protect and enhance the ' streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recre- ation and Open Space Plan Map. Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). ' Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views ' 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on pri- vate property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and de- signed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not in- development on any site. tended to prohibit coastal 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic and natural value. ' 8/17/99KP:U'NP8301stideisnd.wpd)) 4-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA Assoctates, Inc, Environmental Checklist Responses a) b) c) Would the proposed project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegeta- tion became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surround- ings? Less than Significant Impact The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. There- fore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 8/17/99((P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-2 III L� LSA Associates, Inc. Id) Create anew source of substantial light or glare Which would adversely affect day or night- time views in the area? ' No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 1 1 1 8/17/99(LPAPNP8301s11 LSA Associales, Inc. 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Environmental Checklist Responses As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: a) Convert Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion offarmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpdN 4-5 LSA Associa(es, Inc. 1 4.3 AIR QUALITY Existing Setting The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Qual- ity Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Environmental Checklist Responses ' Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ' No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the ' current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Qual- ity Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. ' b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ' quality violation? Less titan Significant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emis- sions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment haul- ing materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would ' vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- 1 ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil 1 disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: ' 8/17/99<(P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd>> 4-6 I LSA Assoctales, Inc. ' 1. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: • All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, ' shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ' All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). ' All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 2. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: 1 i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 3. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. 4. At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. 8117/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)> 4-7 1 ' LSA Associates, Inc. 5. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. ' Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including release of emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with ' State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. ' No exceedances to SCAQMD's criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for ' the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitiga- tion Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than signifi- cant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the el- derly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of ' sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecologi- cal preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to air- borne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equip- ment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are ' not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 4-8 LSA Associates, Inc. ' Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. ' e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the ' operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. J LJ U LSA Associates, Inc. I 1 I 1 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: a. Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; b. Riparian areas C. Freshwater marshes d. Saltwater marshes e. Intertidal areas f. Other wetlands g. Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and South- ern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper rail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to ' its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to I8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpdN 4-10 [1 LSA Associates, Inc. ' use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive ' species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February i through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the ' project will be below a level of significance. ' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural commu- nity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ' No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condi- tion. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt ' marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist ' of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ' ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ' through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. ' 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 4-11 ' LSA Associates, Inc. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state, Cur- rently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal ' sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their ' habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. ' e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within New- port Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve.has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated ' to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. ' 2. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. ' a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. be- low. ' b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area 1 constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. ' C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environ- ment. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\siideisnd.wpd» 4-12 ' LS9 Associates, Inc. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a devel- opment plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope ' will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological re- sources at the site. J7 Conflict with the provisions can adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. U 1 I I 1 8/17/99((P:\PNP830ls1ideisnd.wpd)> 4-13 ' LSA Associates, Inc. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Setting ' Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the t Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. ' The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites ' have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicin- ity of the project, including the adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. ' City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City's LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in ' accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. ' Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. ' Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: I a) ,' I 1 I Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 8/17/99(tP:1PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-14 ' LSAAssociales, Inc. t b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ' No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With ' adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. ' c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its ' natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result inany significant impacts to paleontological resources. fd) Disturb any human remains? t 1 1 1 1 No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\sl ideisnd.wpdN 4-15 ' LSA Associates, Inc. ' 4.6 GEOLOGYAND SOILS Environmental Checklist Responses ' Would the proposed project: ' a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ' 3) Rupture of a known earthquakefault? ' Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. 4) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1 1 1 1 Less Than Significant Impact The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles south- west of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is consid- ered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. S) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seis- mic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-16 1 I LSA Associates, Inc. ' 6) Landslides? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ' Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a "critical ' estuary" habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. ' The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper ' Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay ' are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construc- tion activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertiliza- tion); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). ' The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source ' solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. ' The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits ' by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollu- tion Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:' State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for Na- tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. ' 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-17 LSA Associates, Inc. ' 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property bound- aries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands'), known wells, an outline of ' off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topog- raphy, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. 1 1 1 1 1 The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; C. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; C. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in storm - water discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if ' The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 8/17/99«P:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-18 1 ' LSA Associates, Inc. ' different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. ' 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction ' site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after con- struction. 1 1 t 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulch- ing, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sedi- ment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all signifi- cant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The dis- charger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as nec- essary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City ofNewport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 8117/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-19 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.7 HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS Environmental Checklist Responses a) b) c) d) Would the proposed project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all. local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursu- ant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\sl ideisnd.wpd)) 4-21 LSA Assoctates, Inc. ' No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated-to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. 8/17/99((P.,\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-22 1 ' LSA Associates, Inc. ' 4.8 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: ' a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ' No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted develop- ment standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, ' and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through ' the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4.6 and adher- ence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. ' b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces ' to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related ' to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? Less Titan Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely ' planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. There- ' 8/17/99((P:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)> 4-23 LSA Associates, Inc. ' fore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of ' surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ' storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces ' on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. ' .n Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 1 1 Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items a) and c) above. Therefore, impacts re- lated to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. There- fore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. lr) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item g) above. 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-24 ' LSA Associates, Inc. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item g) above. j) Inundation by seiclre, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope ' to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 1 1 1 ' 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.ivpd)) 4-25 LSA Associates, Inc. I i 1 1 I 4.9 LAND USEAND PLANNING Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and ' reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. I8/17/99((P:1PNP8301slideisnd.wpd)) 4-26 LSA Associates, Inc. I t H I 1 1 1 4.10 MINERAL Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delin- eated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 8/17/99<(P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-27 LSA Associates, Inc. 1 4.11 NOISE Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project result in: a) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess ofstandards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standard of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. ' b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne nosie levels would not be significant ' c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the pro- ject, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the pro- ject, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 1 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\siideisnd.wpd)) 4-28 I LV Assoclates, Inc. ' e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ' Less Titan Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport's 60 dBA CNEL ' impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. ' .0 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, there- fore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. n 1 C ' 8/19/99(<P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-29 ' LSA Associates, Inc. 4.12 POPULATIONAND HOUSING Environmental Checklist Responses ' Would the proposed project: ' a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? ' No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either di- rectly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to popula- tion growth. ' b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating tine construction of replace- ment housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. There- fore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ' housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. ' Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. t 1 LI 1 ' 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)> 4-30 C ' LV Assoclates, Inc. ' 4.13 PUBLICSERVICES Environmental Checklist Responses ' Would the proposed project: ' a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental ' facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or otherperformance objectivesfor any of thefollowingpublic services. ' 1) Fire protection? ' No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel ' modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2) Police protection? ' No Impact The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing ' site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. ' 3) Schools? ' No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. ' 4) Parks? No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 8/17/99(<P:\PNP830\slideisndvvpd)) - 4-31 LSA Associates, Inc. ' S) Otherpublicfacilities7 No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 1 CIS 1 n I I I I I I I I I t8/17/99«PAPNP8301s1ideisnd.w LSA Associates, Inc. 4.14 RECREATION Environmental Checklist Responses a) Would the proposed project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of tyre facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no signifi- cant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ' No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restor- ing the slope to its natural condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. I 1 ' 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd>> 4-33 LSA Associates, Inc. I 1 t 1 1 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less titan Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. ' d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ' No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. ' 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)> 4-34 1 LSA Associates, Inc. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. 8/17/99((P.,\PNP830\siideisnd.wpd» 4-35 IJ M Associates, Inc. I 1 1 1 I C I 1 4.16 UTILITIESAND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable California Regional Water Quality Control Board?? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. There- fore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. There- fore, there are no impacts on water supply. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project Is anticipated demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 8/17/99KP:\PNP8301slideisnd.wpd» 4-36 ISAAssociates, Inc. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 8/17/99KP:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpdH 4-37 I LSA Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 C' 1 1 4.17 MANDATORYFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Checklist Responses a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major proceeds of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vege- tation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are consider- able when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ' No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. ' c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ' human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. ' Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 1 ' 8/17/99«P.\PNP8301.slideisnd.wpd>> 4-38 1 LSA Associates, Inc. ' 4.18 EARLIERANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other ' CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 1 a) Earlier analyses used Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for ' review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis: ' Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element ' Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan 1 t b) Impacts adequately addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpo- rated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the pro- ject Not applicable. 8/17/99«P:NPNP830lslideisnd.wpdN 4-39 LSA Associates, Inc. 5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING REPORT PREPARATION CITYOFNEWPORTBEACH Jay Garcia, City of Newport Beach Planning Department APPLICANT Andy Dodge, Park Newport Apartments 8/17/99((P.\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)> 5-1 LSA Associates, Inc. ' 6.0 REFERENCES ' City of Newport Beach, 1988. General Plan - Land Use Element. Adopted by the Newport Beach City Council, Resolution No. 88-100. October 24. ' City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January 9. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999.GnatcatcherSurveys onBluffBelowParkNewportApart- ' ments. May 25. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout ' Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July 1. t 1 1 1 8n7 ' LSA Assocfales, Inc. ' ATTACHMENT A GNATCATCHERSURVEYS ' 1 1 1 1 1 8/17/99«P:1PNP830klideisnd.wpd» 6-2 • • LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Principals 1 1 Rob Baden Sheila Brady Les Card David Clore Ross Dobberteen Steve Granbolm Richard Harlacher Rager Harris Art Homrighamen Larry Kennings Laura Lefler Cari dlyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Anthony Perrot Rob Schonholiz Malcolm J. Sproul Lloyd A Zola Associates James Baum ' Connie Calica Tung.cben Chung, Ph.D. Steven W. Conkling 1 1 1 n Gary Dow Jack Easton Richard Erickson Kevin Fincber Frank Haselton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Malamat Sabrina Nicholh M. W. 'Bill' O'Connell Deborah Pracilto Amy Skewes-Cox Lynette Stanchma Jill Wilson O'Conner LSA May 25,1999 Mr. Loren Hays US Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Dear Loren: Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the completed survey forms are attached for your review. The six surveys were made one week apart, except between the fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly as possible so that it is completed, including the revegetation of the slide area, before the onset of the winter rains. 'They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff and out the away the cryptogamic crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is in- stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding the permit process. 5125/99((P:1PNP8301gnatsurveyltr.wpd)) One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 949 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Irvine, California 92614-5981 Facsimile 949 353-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvine.lsa@Ira-assoucrom • ' • LSA Associates, Inc. Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. If you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 0j0� M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Restoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar & Associates Kevin Culbertson, Culbertson and Adams Attachment 5@5/99«P:\PNP830\patsurveyltrwpd>> 2 II II II •Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVRr FORK Site: / far /i F� b �i h/v+u� �n . .T a� Investigators: e, Date: S.2/ Starting Time:, ,' �/ S� Stopping Time: % !SO Conditions (Veather 5 Temperature): Start: -2 a C , Stop: K 3 cX-v Species observed: CAGN / CAWR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. C.NGe X/ lawce,1� osnieG. 2.. /Y C. »yEy^Cc.�S ?D� 3. �,� 1. �,r up-) 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: ,Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 /35-,660 >6 Other important plantse e� r✓ a /p�/Tc Comments: * Use Orange County�s Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by ds John Gray and David Bramlet and Methoused to Survey the Vegetation of Orange - - --- ^----_... a,..^,, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb lover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. mf II 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS) CONDUCTED BY' &,//Cf t"iersis� PROJECT 1. Location of the survey area: 2. lisscrlptbn o} survey methods: �. How frequently waf-tapb vocalization used (it at sin: 4. Total number of surveys: Dete s Bfo at s W her Ts ralure Act" Surveyed Per l3kilogist Per Da Route Used 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s).' Number Sez T.-Provide a c survey area: 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s)-! Number !rl dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 'See map for locallon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, independent juvenile, dependent juvenye, recently t (edged juvenye, nestling, and unknown. Pa 1 s M Site: Inves . Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped Joe. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVBZ FORM 04 tigators: Date: Starting Time: / ,'.g D Stopping Time: A; 2 S Conditions (Veather S Temperaturg): Start: 2— Stop: G 3 A. 4 v Species observed: CAGN / CAVR tNumber observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult /' Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / t Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: ' * Habitat type: Z f0 Dominant Plant Rel.C�joveer Avg. ' r/ �Heigg�hhtt,. j57—c�-��'��l� 3. �. cir/�i C a ' 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: % bare group: % herb cover: ' Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 ,Slope: ,,L N L 9 Other important plants e * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Ora: A�reA Fehr, , 1991 oy Jones a ocv&ez �Qvt * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIF NIA GNATCATCNER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY _�� PROJECTNAULKs- 1. Location of ilia survey area: 2. description of survey methods: 6. flow ir•quentiy wet taps vocalization used (it at all): /�OrN '1rl yDP A. Total number of surtrays: e— D e s Sly B t s /3./ �C'�s--•,r Wealhsr c mar Ts lure Aa" Stavayod Par Per Da goule Used 6zo 3 /0+yy o %,o-'-��.� .� ccJ/fc.I3/r�l�------------ b. Gnatcatcher slghting(s):• Humbw Awl Sax 6. Brown-headad cowbird slghting(s)•' Numb -or sax 7. Provide a qualitative description off the plant communitles (Include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: �Qe c /S"94 Ile 'Sea map for locatfon(s). 'Age categories to be used araadull, kidepeWenl juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesting, and unknown. Pa e 1 Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAAR SURV87 FORK c/3ee,1 bo-, b/b/�i'S 7e' i .- Sr... .7 reiri.n / C 5y /r/ic"./ re Investigators: /(2�., L g2 C-v nZl- Date: sA / Starting Time: '? o Stopping Time: ^7:1 S' Conditions (Weather S Temperature): Start: 'F C �ea rr Stop: G.�, Clec✓ Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals - Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: ppDominant Plant%Rel. Cover 1. Gi7C!/4. ,G �1Or n,CG. d 2. A1 101eyf «s 30 3. v a 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,SO 90 100 Avg. Height. ee / - CC/ —.2 Poll X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants, * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the vegetation of Ora. 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height? X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. corn.le. 19" COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' , ,> (a ' PROJECT NA. ir , Ar/Y• vj�.•-'7�s l c% 1. Location of the surrey area: 2. bescrlptbn of survey methods: :L How frequently we* tap* vocalization used (B at &IQ: i. Total number of zurVeys: Data s a Weather Ten4mature Anse Surveyed Per t Per Da Route Used s� o co....& 5. Gnatcatcher sighting(s)' Number AM.. _ Sex 6-Brown-headed cowbird stghiing(s) ►AeeberAwl Sex s 7. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: _ Se e 4 " r �..4_, r,e e- nIf- _ d a fi d J O/, C-Zov _ 'See mep for iocaiion(s) 'Age categories to be used are aduM. Independent juvenlle, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nesting, and unknown. Page 1 *Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURM FORK Site: Investigators: J, Date:_ * Starting Time: /, ; HS—� Stopping Time: ? -e Conditions (Weather & Temperature): / Start: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant Rel. Cover A�C, c.„e O o 2. osca"s PO 3. i .. , G a � nic v.ti 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 5) 100 X gap: % bare group: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 Other important plantsLA22j 9rC/n,G Comm t�s-: Use Orange County Is Habitat John Gray and David Bramlet rn„nty Parks and Open Space S CGCu/ P ion System X herb cover: M vs, y re res 4. TS R hCw dated Ma 01992 prepared by rvnv the Vegetation of Orai * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCNER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY _�� J r� ��• •. n�� PROJECT NA.�E` ' 1. Location of (he survey area: 2. beicriptlon of survey tnsthods: 6. Now frequently wai tape Vocalization used (if at aln: 4. Total number of surveys: S. Gnatcatcher slghting(a).` Number Sex T. Provide a c survey area: plant communities s6' 3 e G. Brown -headed cowbird sightings):* Number Sax Route Used dominant species and habitat quality) on and acgaeent to the *See map for bcatbn(s). 'Age categories to be used are aduk, independent juvenile. dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesiNng, and unknown. Page i . m m m m)• 7• 0 m I I 1 r� 1.1 U • 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAW& SUSVET FORM Site: Inve stigators: /� ti tied Date: 2 Starting Time: (o1S'D Stopping Time: 9.'/S Conditions (Veath Start Stop: 5 v N =c Species observed: CAGN / CAWR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type:. /O tic /�— Cheer / / oo-�sc ry b Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. Coe vVrV.cw �0� - eef ella—r-G/I 2./Y, A ,1 co S 3. a , 10 I- , a VAn S a - e c 2- 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .SO ® 100 X gap: Slope: Flat important Dr 2 iO ts:, S'ee- X bare group:_ 0-10 10-35 X herb cover: 35-60 >60 * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Ora 10, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY - /7. // n ? `, . 1 // • x . PROJECT NA, E`S�e/ei®a/s- 1. Locatbn of ihs survey area: 2. beicription of survey rrwthods: t How frequently wai bob vocalization used (it at all): A. Total number of surVsys: L— Dates gb a Weather Ts furs W" &M"d Per Per Da Routs Used %22 �q/ X3i//0 G6",7t-/� G y SC % 2ui -a �.0 W S. Gnatcatcher sighting(s)•! timber Sex 7. Provide a qualitative descdpt�� of the surveyares: S 6. Brown -handed cowbird sighting(s) m A Sex Include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 'See reap for tocation(s). 'Age categories to be used are aduk. independent j avenge, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesigng, and unknown. Page 1 � � A Site: Inves • ! Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad CAGN/CAVR SURVR7 FORK tigators: ell Date: l S" Starting Timer ' 2 S -e" Stopping Time: 7.'�iU A� Conditions (heather S Temperature): Start: ,S'/ co.. e �, L. stop: 'F , Species observed: CAGN / CAUR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species:CZ * Habitat type:. /u rei:1eL ChPs Dominant Plant rr Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1 1, (�:..en� G�TUrnIt4 �d Ord - i' YtT 2. 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 80 (9 100 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants ,e � Use John e x• X herb cover: 35-60 60 4 �"!�•c O++sMUh� YG�rrld 73 a- Svstem dated Ma 19t prepared by County Parks and Open Space Areas and 'rne Irvine %,umpany rive=-•, ----- ----- 10, 1993 by Jones S Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY PROJECTNA.ti% %�tr 1f/�� c/et/rD rye 1. Location of (tte survey area:cal- 2. Dsscrtption of survey trtethods: S. Now frequently was taps► vocation used (it ataln: �. Total number of surveys:_ Date s 8 1 s Weather Ts eraturs Act" surveyed For t PerDa Routs Used 1 /,te ra c%. y 441F 6. Gnatcatcher slghting(s) Number sox S. Brown -headed cowbkd slghting(s):' Number sex 'See map for location(s). *Age categories to be used are aduk, indeperxient juvenile, depmWent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 = ! ! CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projeefs surroundings.) The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area. The areas to the south, east, CHECKLIST Page 1 { and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Agricultural Resources 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance CHECKLIST Page 2 ' DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Cal I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ 1 Javier S. Garcia Printed Name Ib q Date F:IUSERSIPLNIS HARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDINGIPARKNPn%CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 3 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated �-�r VJ I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 1Z community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 4 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides or mudflows? Potentially Significant Impact J u C LJ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 11 ■❑ C L 0 Less than No Significant Impact Impact ❑ Ef ■ n ❑ R1 ❑ Ef I'i� M ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1z CHECKLIST Page 5 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ 91 ❑ the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? V. HYDROLOGY. Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ Rf supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CHECKLIST Page 6 k 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 6) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? VI. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ a substantial number of people? VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 access? 6) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 capacity? CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q( any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q( federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? CHECKLIST Page 9 t I Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q( adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IX. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? 4) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CHECKLIST Page 10 L A 5) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent incre ambient noise levels in the prc vicinity above levels existing w the project? 4) A substantial temporary or peri increase in ambient noise leve the project vicinity above level: existing without the project? Potentially Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated n X J n C M 701 Al 0 No Impact "AI ❑ 0 n 55 �� 5 n C L J Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Qj Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q( Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Bj Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Q requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? CHECKLIST Page 12 i 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project' projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1z ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ CHECKLIST Page 13 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XVI RECREATION. 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0. ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 CHECKLIST Page 14 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPORMS\NEO-DEC\CKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR — City ofNewport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January, 9, 1990 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air QualityManagementPlan EIR, 1997. 10. South Coast air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 11. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 13. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 14. Grading Plan Review — Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 15. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. 16. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98-061113. July 1, 1999. 17. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9 18. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannin Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonine - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (5001o) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Would the proposed project: I. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plait, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: I. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the snaps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Population/Housing Would the project: I. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ofreplacement !rousing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. (b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. (C) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. (d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:1 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands2), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. Less than Significant Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be mini- mized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will com- ply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is a corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mideatoon Measure No. 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 4 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5. Hydrology Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? site? Less Than Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from.the project to flooding on or off site. 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Ouality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive 10 receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Signi*ant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: i All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 11 b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for 12 the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. 7. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and 13 pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. 14 Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 8. Bioloeical Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper rail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 15 As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February 1 through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The 16 remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, 17 which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Mitigation Measure No. S A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: i. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? is No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less than Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. S. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19 No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Titan Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne nosie levels would not be significant 01 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise 21 level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? ON No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 13. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment, provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projectes solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 23 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s Genert Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect sigi applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, tc preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natu and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Ope Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develop; 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic a Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily 24 discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less titan Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less titan Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 15. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the M adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitieation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish 26 procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permirsampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could'have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on 27 the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a 01-i beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less titan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 29 60 San Bernardino 60 County sos Los Angeles County 57 71 so \ 91 5 91 '\ Riverside 15 , County 39 \405 55 Orange 22 L--� 5 \ a6s j 5s County 24t im i 73 1 0 1 1 1 74 1 j I PROJECT �a SITE I �' t• 1 I ✓^ I San Diego County H � o , m. 5 8/13/99(PNP830) 0. N LSA Scale in Miles 1� 0 3 6 Figure 1 Regional Location � �,`O 6 � ?i//.�l r?y?.< �r_SztN,�c� � . Q•r•.ly'" !i ,..�` tl ----�`- � :\\iLind rYA � � ,.-�—;C'�_ - '�a: , --_,. ,l J_ � `� /7-l!_✓f., w5 i I ,.�^,_., e `' _ ._ °o /• iy.;';}"; a{t',.`.`.j. P ')':� 'Salt S .•, i; '� wl p s{ i11 ,97 Is `?:• r�"+Cfi <: ;: "_5}<,lr♦ .,- - kEvzPorators .; Ip 'r �l t�'i,,i DR �ilfaker } li( `II /-'!r' C!'.i; ;'-:'fi,::�`;�li(,2',"•ti 'r^, ^.-. ..W - _'✓ wl Pil• � ,- � ♦ �4iF5 /`' �';; b. :. _\i? ;` .�"��`%-{atsb,,,2e' t I" �7f a. :• , � G l) 1 , ¢• � ' .�•j�,,,\;'�Lh�, [� • sgm;;.;: ,::• !% � :1 : H J � V� ti� . ''� go ' ,, � 1 .+. � y2 ., a ♦ ♦ �. !.r(;I:r%:<5�'.} ��/�;f,..»''/.'18 _ r. • ..f �. I• Jo v, ,v R'I 4, \• pae os .. t:,,r-... it .. ,:,Q d � 'O � '• ; ��e• N:•... c t:Y:r} .., 1 � 1 J aT _' :i'} '�r�4 �`,yf{I � • ,:y ��i i 'S��, � ` / r,"i'7hff'b', i i i ,R /G :• k �'Q� •b1i:a _ '; ,� i l'Y : �1 ` �;y1;i�r+�yc; � � •r'Z" : iti . y :`;. o ' ��O ,. `' I � , �:�. ^"xm.. i� t • 1'ii•. ^V't�ui1. •v . _ ��. � tc�1 ? rW ' > Q � c.,.4i S .N.S "—L^@ 1 r. (Qrons del or `.. �11 •11 'iln.-.i 5.�d�a �).,. n ns eh D Y , fi eo- . Y, . l+•.i � 'A ••mot �/�l y� coninx 4,; � A Source: USGS 8/13/99(PNP830 'ii N LSii .r �1 o r •, .."�- . •yam: ��•; _, `c' �--�i :�.. � �(<�\�� : �.".L,��_.•. it a, \ `+ _1-��2i _� X• 1: � .� +I PARK NEWPORTAPARTMENTS �Gn ..� Y �.p, �� _,-lYj mil,.->,-`' •�JI{ �.��,,•. �...,, �;(� + •, �• ��.� 1�7 `r��'/j:�✓� :/ UpperNewpoKBay LEGEND: Slide i �•LT Scale in Feet L u� LSA75 150 Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site o ! MI VIEW t��'- _ � Sim -• d - `d-..'. �. ...{ 14-1 S � 4•lLit� m t�....nA:MmAir- Boundan : �A - — -' ^.=rCK18AYORIV__o_-�--fit- -i / � _ �---�---�"• adrxe�nn[r gyp. _ T -'-" _ — T__.--_ _ ,.. Source:04 RBF. . -. [ i ? ...: .: . � / ' •. ./! i / ' f ' / � --- - omnlo sw.w ron wlu 8n3n9(nvr80) N:� LSA Scalein Feet Z� 0 30 60 Figure 5 Grading Plan F r�C,Yp�\SC�,'... p�-_,,. Jj1jL;•R ••, .. •r � I: •�.:. .: ,:i<n I 'q' .. ,1� -„ ,•`,� � LEGEND. � @(%'7,��'./.:��.-.,c:.i,rz•,�.�, ,-. •,/r:l�;•;::'=T� ;avo;G� :1 ----'- I Galaxy Park �. i r�„'.• 2 Eastbluff Remnant •'fin, •\, ��-a: ":t1"W`-9 ,II 3 Eastbluff Park / s-,",.,>' \'':?_" ;: '';I':m 1{!•'•-t°� "y^`' Salt .:=''- }� >.-;. -Evaporators : lyi' / � ;::,:;?^r �; i\i BACK mq {\ ?C_.r._y:.,..•�.y..:'� r'! h _ �; •i�r�; 7i(t}Unrr'ri ,:io'i; ', yloR III / ':>�. 'N•' "'.� �i9.� 0`"4.5, :—`^ _-`=n.-...° — ml• -`' 14, iltZieer �� Il �): ¢. �, .,�L,H)',�1. {�u�,�, �y:.. :.: a '•..,�� ' C) .�qji"re yii�rt, •`.• � � I � t t iW ',�Q � I o �4r4-.,,r:. ll... '.._ m y`rtr, �%,,i •y�. • rona dal Mar � �, ::i) / n :v • 1' ' ' 7 � > ([h Scl� % � ♦ i \ 1 1, CI yl� � �. ParY� Jj �F ,i.+l�% •1 Gf ��H '•', ` h 1j'. :,�.a: L�� ,,_ o it i p(I -- ' � "�J/� \ -( ;'�._�_��•, •`s <: s:+ BLUFF & SLIDE ! qy. ,`t \ /� 73 r a !. REVEGETATION 9°-`. �. i'' L�1 4i! ',( Ij li i'%9�5%.-- r•9PGi'�\' 1��11 •' II•L•r•..�.�_� � M •'` I In . JM. ..9ti+" `✓ •��\/ ii N \ D\ 1 �'i ./// ` :\ y¢�yt:.�,\\ •_ J/.?'••-^� ;•• ._, i`' �\ ;,i'.��1L ° 4;1>„t� f, ' 1 I`rl' .: .lv' . �—,.• },.� �: t � "�ri•. �." ��. �'.r� � * � '�1�ivA^��;'�'^•' '� // v t�' �( , �i`':��i .�i � V '`��\r`%�I ■1 �` .�.l,l�\, f ^i= (� � I .i°,°_/' �r '�;` .r,H ��`\ ^, i`' iRY �: S ' g '�� I\ -��•'` .r.� � _ ,tin;;'><,I,y('.�,: , /� - vr,>r_ i , � ^••. 't � --._ ti� \"t � is � � •��T'�` '• O'°Ailin '4—iac1= B hco" :Imn_�[[n.y I{'��''•, .� i"��nA`i .la��j -- �• � '. . ' '`, �� ` '. `�` f.. j3�` '��Y'.�•JI e S �II`�,'•� �� "I'!\ t/.a \HI�:�Q ri^ ^c \�'/'7 �$i1P L\Ti '. sr � is Source: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin &Laguna Beach, Calif." :;/ �. r r; '"�:.+� v (r:' ''% •-; 8/13/99(PNP830) lit N LSD Scale in Feet 1� 0 1000 2000 Figure 6 View Locations •' i • LSA Associates, Inc. Principals Rob Balers Sheila Brady Les Card David Clore Ross Dobberteen Steve Granbolm Richard Harlacher Roger Harris An Homrighmtsen Larry Kennings Laura LaJler Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Anthony Perros Rob Schonholtz Malrobn J Sprout Lloyd B. Zola Associates James Baum Connie Calico Tung-rhen Cbung, Ph.D. Steven W. Conkling Gary Dow Jack Easton Richard Erickson Kevin Fincber Frank Haselton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Malamut Sabrina mrbolB M. W. "Bill" O'Connell Deborah Pracilio Amy Skewes-Cox Lynette Stanchina Jill Wilson O'Conner LSh May 25, 1999 Mr. Loren Hays US Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Dear Loren: Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the completed survey forms are attached for your review. The six surveys were made one week apart, except between the fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly as possible so that it is completed, including the revegetation of the slide area, before the onset of the winter rains. -They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff and cut the away the cryptogamic crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is in- stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding the permit process. 525/99«P.\PNP830\gnaLsurvcyltr wpd» One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614-5981 �6 Telephone 949 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Facsimile 949 553-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvine.Isa@lsa-assoc.mm f� • LSA Associates, hs. Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. If you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at (949)553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Owl M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Restoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar & Associates Kevin Culbertson, Culbertson and Adams Attachment •Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEY FORM Site: Inves Date:- Starting Time: �, ,' �/ S� Stopping Time:^7 ! S d Conditions (Weather b Temperature): ( / Start: �o l o/ / 0 Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant Rel. Cover AVR. Height C4 , u nicG� 2. fi, I ,e Ci..�CiCc.,S "/ //— r (^ 3. � t� i.-� a /, h q v c u p-) 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants e e e Comments: * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Br let and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Ora County Parks and Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Propert dated Febr 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be" collected Within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. .6 i 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY ./ e.IZ PROJECTNAME. 1. Location of ilia survey area: i besctlpllon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wag tape vocalization used (if at all): �� ;, „ _ �, , , , f r S- 7c d. Total number of surveys: Dates Blolo 1st s -- We Ila er Temperature Acres Surveyod Per Blologlsl Pat Day Route Used 1— S. Gnatcatcher slghting(s):• Numbar Ago.. Sex 7. Provide a ( survey area: 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Number Ago.. Sox dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the: 'See map for locatlon(s). 'Age categorles to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, neslling, and unknown. s s Page 1 .P Site: Inves Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad tigators: .�/ ti- well Date: /J ly Starting Time: Stopping Time: ,,7; 2 S Conditions (Weather S Temperature$): Start: G L - /e 0 Stop: _63 C�P G ✓ Species observed: CAGN / CAAR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: Dominant Plant (A Rel.�C�oveeir C4/ 4)-Aice, 2. �j// / sv�e :C C 4 .� eCC e -e- 30 % 3. L . c// v � y / rnic 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants�� * Use Orange County's Habitat John Gray and David Bramlet H es, 70 ,.80 90 100 35-60 % herb cover: dated May 1992 prepared by r,.a., the vegetation of Ora * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.•• 1994 COASTAL CALIF9111,11A GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY. r) PROJECTNA, E 1. Location of ilia survey area: 2. tlescrlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wa§ tape vocalization used (if at all): 44 bP Al. Total number of surVays: 6_ rj bete s Blolo Ist s Weather Tem Temperature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Route Used spy 9i ✓3. C-r, o r (� 3 0 '3 e� �''/`r 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):' Number Ago.. sex 7. Provide a qualitative description of the surveyarea: 6. Brown-hendod cowbird slghting(s)•! Number Ago.. Sox • dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 'See map for ,location(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 Y j Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Happed,loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad CAGN/CAVR SURVEY FORK _/ >at rt bow h/y /`TS �r b>n Jn., �l .,�cirii ./�%�C 5; Investigators: Date: Starting Time: GPP Stopping Time: Conditions (Veather 5 Temperature): Start: Temperature): Stop: S:S o f Clec '— Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: Dominant Plant((` 1. �nce�a a/iar nit C}. 2. ......... a Co Ptcs.�S 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 6 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35s Other important plant GROUP - No. Individuals / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Rel.. Cover d yj 3a 0 70 .80 90 100 % herb cover: 35-60 >6 * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the vegetation of Orange * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. coy.ie,— 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE�� SURVEY(S) r' CONDUCTED BY �, 7/73 ,f;t // / PROJECT NA, E: mac, ir/y►r✓��/, �✓ P /r�c� y 1. Location of (he survey area: 2. Descrlptlon at'survey methods: 3. How frequently was tape vocalization used (If at ail): 4. Total number of surveys: fi Dates Blolo Ist s Weather Tom erature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Route Used aor�d .S%1Hny/ s—y`f—' �3 �f/v /o�..C- K— 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):' 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):' Number A Sex Number Age Sax 7. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: - > (2 & s d///-- 'See map for tocaiton(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 I* *Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEr FORM Site: Investigators: Date:-- Starting Time: ; % Stopping Time:;DO /7. Conditions (Weather & Temperature): Start: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant r Rel. Cover Avg. Height Pea �G 2. /�fr:o�ex CunPScs,.S 0 O $- a�//Pe/ 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 X gap: % bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 other important plants - ✓M ��ccv c �� John i5 ( n' �/v (rr /�"Y� �C �tM in4 GdJ f/i!/ y Y2 rCS c.+%$ LC Yw`W :nge County's Habit t Classification System dated Ma�1992 prepared by c..�,.e,. tt a vPOPtation of Ora: and 10 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associates, inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' y. PROJECT NA, E 1. Location of the survey area: 2. tlescriptlon of survey methods: 9. How frequently was tape vocalization used (if at all): _ • 0 fs e f 4. Total number of surVeys:_ r Dates ,411,2 `/ 9% Blolo 1st s f3.,//0 'Cow tee// Weather G v-c, Temperature 5"G ° Acres Surveyed Per Bloloillst Per Day Route Used -'-e,�f' /w e� 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number A Sax 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Number A a•• Sax 0 7. Provide a qualitative descrlptlo. of a plant communitles-(Incipda dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: 'See map for locatlon(s). $Age categories to be used are adult, independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently Iledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 ba • • 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad Site: Inve CAGN/CAAR SMVRr FORM f/ y 4+� stigators: Date: 7 2 Conditions (Veath Start Starting Time: C S D Stopping Time: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAWR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: Dominant Plant, 2./ 3. !.1 i�rs� C�i i f urnicvM 4. / Rel. Cover Avg. Height T Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .SO ® 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Plat 0-10 10-35 important plants * Use Orange County's Habitat Class John Gray and David Bramlet and H , 1993 by Jones b Stokes Associates, 35-60 >60 tion System dated May 1992 prepared by * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' PROJECT NA, r* 7c 1. Location of khe survey area: 2. Descriptlon of survey methods: a. How frequently was tape vocalization used (If at all): A. Total number of surveys: _6— Dates Blolo ist s Weather Temperature ACTGS Surveyed Per 1310101st par Da Route Used y12 9'% /3.11O C. oa / S-6° 6. Gnalcatcher sighting(s):• Number Age Sex 7. Provide a qualitative descriptiI--n of the plant surveyarea: __50e -}� S/?9-Sv>-✓ 6. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):• Number Age" Sex (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 'See map for locatlon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 • 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVEY FORK Site: Inves Date: 6- Starting Timer ' 2 S gIv; Stopping Time: 7.'//0 9,o Conditions ('Weather S Temperature): / Start: �'S Fa./ sv.. e �, �� a a.-�e 6 d Stop: 'F 1� 92 Affed Species observed: CAGN / CAYR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female 'Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: / * Habitat type: /D ( r,ceh!2har�v��C�'� Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Av g. Height r 2. �i S-G FrrT 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 •SO (0 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Other important plants * Use John ts: Parks C 2�'*G'* • A f///�� •, X• u+,2/H4 ! •G tl+��M U»i� YGjrA1'e+%j a- rs Habitat Classification System dated Ma�1912 prepared by __� e,.�..e rho Vocetation of Ora 'OVA / a.. 10, 1993 by Jones is Stones nssvciaL=zr �"•* * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. y/ 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY PROJECTNA, Lr 1. Location of the survey area: 2. Descrlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently was tape vocalization used (if at all): 4. Total number of surveys: _6 • Date(s) Blolo Ist s Temperature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Route Used ,Weather Ato �/ / D C"�0 v .i�.7 ,/ �j z%1CJ,-- 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number A a" Sex 7. Provide a qualitative survey area: Al, yY, 6. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):' Number A ' Sax dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the Za 'See map for location(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nesiling, and unknown. • Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. 11. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date A GEOLOGICPROBLEMSTanth) 1. That the project shall nonfarm to the Nabonal Pollution Conditioaof Plan Check Priortotheimiameof Disdiatge Elimination Systena(NPDPS)requ'vrmetds and shall be subject to approval gadntgpearsdProgam Public Works the approval ofthe Public Works Depmtmeotandthe Building Depatnent or mcnitormgeGa� Department CftyauthorvedGradingEogtmer. pnortotheissuanxof gradingpeadd 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and PmgrarnmmAamg Public Works oompleted by a registered geologist. The facil'dies shall be inspected during Approval routine monitoring by a tablisbadpriortothe Department ApnlorMayofeadnyear. Themmttsofthbzg3eWmdallbeuNnitt to property owner issuance agrad'mg the City of Newport Beady Public Wets Director for rrwx wbefae June 1. pewit Should it be ddmnh ed that the slope is continuing to sluff; based upon the nsuhs often annual inspectors, £other remedial grading/construction work dull be required as ddemuned by the Public Works Director. All remedial wudcrequ'iredbytbe City shall bemmpletedbyNovember 1 oftbatyeac 3. The constructed facilities -shall be routinely maintained by the Condition of Plan Check and Pmg anion8aing Public Works property own r as dderhhind by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Approval routine monitoring by establislhedgiortothe Department DcpartrneaL property owner issuarhoeofgmding permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures ofthe CiWs grading ordinance and all applicable local Condition of Plan Check Priatotheisshunce of Public Works and State building oodm and seismic design guidelines, including the approval gadingpesmit Department City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). S. BIOIAGICALRESOURCES 5. A certified Ecologist shall oversee the babdat restoration kiting Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanoeof Public Works the nwegatating period and mortar maioterurce and progress Orange approval gadmgpermit Departs art and the condnudion fencing shall be installed alagthe edge ofthe coastal sage scrub Planning Department habitat closed tothe com4udion area prior to the start of construction. The constnhdion fcn=g will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipmadhtothecoaztalsagesaubbab0at Abio o&fanuliarwidr oastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the locatian of the construction fencing. The f nc erg shall be maintained in place throughout mnWnction period and roved only after all construction is completed. All construction enhployroes shall be iratruated not to ester into the coastal sage scrub babitat beyond the coh>SWd m it. NOISE 6. Canstmctien activity shall be l®ued to those hours allowed by Condition of Field Check Priortotheiwancecf BuildingDepaAmeat the CdyofNewportBe%chNoise OnlinanoeSerticnlo28.W approval gad'mgpam@ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MIITGATIONMEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 15. CULTURALRESOURCES 7. Prior to the issuance of a Wading pe®iy the project applicant Condition of Evidence of Priortothei sua nceof Planning Department shall provide written evidence to flia City ofNewpont Beach fled a guyed approval paleontologist retained Wad'ngpenut and Building Dept paleontolcgisthas beearetained W observe Wading activities and salvage and to perform site catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the lee• surveillonce. Wading oonfaence, stall establish procedures for ardrrologicaVpaleaEdogical resource survcWancg and shall establish, in cooperation with the pr6ed developer, procedures far tanp%x4 halting err redirecting work to Permit sanydmg idntificanco, and evaluation of the fossils Ifmajor ardieolopjcaVpaleontologicat resources are discovered, wbwh require long -tam baiting a redirecting of Wading the paleontologist shall report such findings to the projed developer and to the City of Newport Beady. The paleentologist shall dctanme appropriate actions, in coopaa6on with the project develops, whwh enure proper exploration and/or sahWr- Eioc vated8ndsdull be offered to the CtyofNewport Beady or its designee, not a5rst4dinalbasis, TbeapplicaotmayrNahn said Ends ifwritte n assurance ispmvKUthat they will be properly laeservedin Orange County, unless said funds are of spacial significance, or a museum in Orange Coady indica a desire to shady and/or display them attha tmo , m wbidt rasa item shall be dooatedtotheCity, crdesigee These actions, aswell ss fnalmtigatwn and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the Wading penink ibe paleontologist shall submit a following report fm approval by the City much shell include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the few& fund, and present repositoryofthe fosses F:\USERSIPLNVSHARED\I PL ANCOMIPENDINGIPARIINPIIMTMSRTAB Page 2 ` ' " ` PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 12, 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 12, 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Ran.121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Tel. No.: 916/445-0613) (Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park NewportThe Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope alone the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Highway Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Multi -Family Residential Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project XX The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCE No.) ❑ EA ❑ Final Document 0 Neg Dec ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Dratt/EIR ❑ Other ❑ FONSI Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Sue Plan ❑ Land Division (Sub -division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect ) 0 Other Grading Permit for slope stability and repair - Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities, Type MGD ❑ Office: Sq.R. Acres Employees_ ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Power: Type Watts ❑ Educational: ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ 0 Hazardous Waste: Type Other: surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document ❑ Acsthetic/Visual ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Air Quality 0 Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian 0 Archeologic/Historic ❑ Minerals ❑ Wildlife 0 Sod Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Coastal Zone 0 Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing/Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Land Use ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Service/Facilities ❑ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects 0 Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks 0 Vegetation ❑ Other LSA LSA Associates, Inc. To: City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Jay Garcia, Senior Planner Date: September 29, 1999 Project: Park Newport Apartments RMIM Transndtted: o Foryour review o Foryourfiles ■ Atyourrequest ❑ Foryourinfornmtion ❑ Foryour approval ❑ Distribution subject: Slide Modification Initial Study/Neg Dec Project m PNP 830 Date Copies Description 9/29/99 1 City of Newport Beach Environmental Information Form 1 Check for $354 for application fees The above are transmitted., ■ Herewith ❑ Under separate cover ❑ Ha. General Remarks: Enclosed please find the completed City of Newport Beach Environmental Information Form and a check in the amount of $354 to cover application fees for the Park Newport Apartments Slide Modifica- tion Project. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the project was submitted previously to you under separate cover. If you have any questions please call me at (949) 553-0666. Copies to: Richard Ellis, Gerson, Bakar & Assoc; B'll O'Connell, LSA Bv: Joan Medina. Environmental Analvst J One Park Plaza, Suite 500 VTelephone 949 553-0666 Irvine, California 92614 Facsimile 949553-8076 03/31/94(L.roRMS.TRANS6aT.1W RECEIVED Gary L. Granville Orange County Clerk -Recorder P.O. Box 238 '99 NOV 22 A 9 :01Santa Ana, Ca 92702 (714) 8344625 �t p u , 6� Oa�ICE Of THE CITY CLERK V�lf�/ I 'Y OF VEWPORT BEACH 11vW Nwpok b Vdl OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of "Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Negative Declaration was received, filed and a copy was posted on It remained posted for 20 (twenty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the -County of range G By; 0 \ / rivv Deputy The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of gh county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a peridd of 30 days. The notice regysgdpursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a nerind of 20 days. unless otherwise reauired by law to be posted for 30 days. -The County Clerk shall post notices w All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. ***Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency ***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead, agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** (a:\eir\eir2Ody) + CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT } TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach (949) 644-3200 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FH.ING Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the $38 filing fee. Please stamp one copy "Posted/Filed" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Javi r S. Garcia, enior Planner POSTED OCT 0 8 1999 GA RANVIL , Clerk -Recorder By DEPUTY Date: Octph--', 12, 1999 F:\USERSIFLMHAREDUFORMSNEQ•llEC04.COVRMEM Filed in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder 38,00 19998501116 08;55am 10/12/99 856 6251013 06 52 Z01 1 38.00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 r7 (949) 644-3200 O C T 0 8 1999 NEGATIVE DECLARATIONc . M vo.lE To: F am: City of Newport BeB I DEPUTY Planning Departmen Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) FxxCounty Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 IPublic review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and Iona -term performance. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. t-� A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Q•(ltdrt /"^�' Date to 'Lv L5 / Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLN\,SHARED\I PLANCOMNENDING\PARKNP'ANEGDEC California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region will!ton .Hickox Internet Address: littp://www.swrcb.ca.gov Secrelaryfor 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3339 Environmental Phone (909) 7824130 • FAX (909) 781-6288 Prolectios November 10, 1999 Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEDEPARTMENT CITYNOFI NEWPORT NG BEACH N0V 17 1999NM PM 71819 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SLOPE STABILITY/REPAIR WORK (GRADING PERMIT) — PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS Dear Mr. Garica We have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration document for this project referenced above. There are some inconsistencies with the information documented in the environmental checklist and the explanation sections of the document regarding environmental impacts associated with Geology and Hydrology. The following items are the inconsistencies discovered in the document: In the Hydrology section on page 7 of,the environmental checklist, environmental impacts 3 and 4, which are associated with the alteration of existing drainage pattern that may cause soil erosion and runoff, are marked "No Impact" and "and "Less than Significant Impact." However, the explanations that address 3 and 4 on page 9 illustrate "Less than Significant" and "No impact." In the Geology and Soils section on page 6 of the environmental checklist, the environmental impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil (2) are marked "Less than Significant Impact." Consequently, the explanation that addresses soil erosion includes mitigation measures, which are illustrated on page 8; therefore, the environmental impact regarding soil erosion or loss of topsoil should be checked "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the environmental checklist section of the document instead of "Less than Significant." These inconsistent items mention above need to be address. If a Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit is required for the project, an application for a 401 Water Quality. Certification must be submitted to the Regional Board office. California Environmental Protection Agency co Recycled Paper Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department - 2 - November 10, 1999 If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3221. Sincerely, -Tom B. Mere9 illano Planning Section cc: Mosie Boyd - State Clearinghouse File:O\\RB8WEBSR\VOL3\USERS\Planning\tmeregil\CEQA Comments\Neg-Dec & Mit Neg Dec-Comments\Oct 99\Newport Slope Stability 10-18-99.doc California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research a State Clearinghouse Gray Davis STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 GOVERNOR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. EOX3044 SACRANIENTO, CA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse.html November 12, 1999 Javier S. Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: 1 Park Newport SCH#: 99101045 Dear Javier S. Garcia: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFwpnPT PEACH AM NOV 18 '1999 PM 718 19110111112,112,314,516 k Loretta Lynch DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on November 10, 1999, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's eight -digit State. Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded foruse in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the.enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 99101045 Project Title 1 Park Newport Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type neg Negative Declaration Description The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project XX The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and Installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the Interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. Lead Agency Contact Name Javier S. Garcia Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949 644-3206 email Address 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 City Newport Beach Project Location Fax State CA Zip 92658-8915 County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Parcel No. 440-132-52 & 440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Township Range Section Proximity to: Highways West Coast Highway Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Land Use Multi -Family Residential Base Projectissues Archaeologic -Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Vegetation; Water Quality; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; Department of Conservation Date Recelved 10/12/1999 Start of Review 10/12/1999 End of Review 11/10/1969 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Gommor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612.0601 November 4, 1999 Javier Garcia, Senior Planner IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH# 99101045 Planning Department ND 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 'Log # 636 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) — Park Newport Apartments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.on the Negative Declaration (ND) for the Slope Stability and Repair Work proposed project for the Park Newport Apartments Complex. The proposed project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay and will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comments. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our. State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. S' c ely, Robert F.,Jo e , C of Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONSy City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannin Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (509o) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Would the proposed project 1. Physically divide an established community? �d No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: 1. ConvertPrime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Population/Housing Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement !rousing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: I. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. (b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of dQ structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. (C) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No -Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. (d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction 4 CZ activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:' A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands'), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, 'stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. -23 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. �a-J-cwh�A�. �jv"�tcu.•Jc (?nln.tl p�t��"tbc�i�+ /acdvf?,ov�� tey ffinn Viguij2o ItHntpaet. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be mini- mized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will com- ply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on. or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is a corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. a<( 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available<for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. / That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No._2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 4 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5. Hydrology Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? as No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? Less Than Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. C, 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a,levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Ouality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive El a7 receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: i All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the followingtmeasures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of thtee months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: i On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less titan Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for 12 a9 the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and 13 30 pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. 14 Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 8. Biological Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper rail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered raze or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less titan Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 1F7 As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will -'prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February 1 through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The 16 35 remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegelation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal Califorliia gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, 17 3y which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Mitigation Measure No. 5 A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? IU 35 No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of bazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. 5. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19 3� No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome nosie levels would not be significant 20 37 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? x No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise 21 10 00 level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. MfNaatlon Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? 22 J No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 1 13. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from theproposedproject. 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. y0 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s Gene Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect si applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of nat and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Ope and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Of Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, an with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines fror and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develol 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily RM discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 15. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the 25 ��Q adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. f City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish 26 I procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public fromslope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on 27 yq the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction'or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findines of Sienificance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper tail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will, cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a 28 ZI5 beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EB2, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 29 y6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following responses were received in regard to the posted Negative Declaration: 1. Acknowledgment of Receipt/ Distribution List Office of Planning and 2. Public Works Dept. City of Newport Beach Comments on Con5litions of Approval Dept. sponsibili Conditions of approval/Mitigation Measures No. 1, 2 and 3 hav been revised as follows: 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elim7 ation System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Deputy C! Manager or designated Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading glneer. 2. An annual inspection ofthe completed facilities shall be completed y a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year T results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Building Depar ent for review before June 1. Should it be determined That the slope is continuing to sluff b ed upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construchon work ha be required as determined by the Building Department. All remedial work required by the Ct shall be completed by November 1 of that year. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained y the property owner as determined by the City ofNewport Beach Building Department. 3. CalTrans: bled 4. California Dept. of Fish and Game Comment Letter attached Letter from the Dept. of Fish and me raised concerns related to the coastal sage scrub habitat to be removed revegetated and the contingency plans for failure of the process. There wee also concerns related to the road closure, fencing to be constructed anduration of the closure and placement of fencing. Additional condition f approval have been incorporated into the mitigation monitoring table nd will be satisfied prior to issuance of the grading permit and during tho course of construction and in conjunction with the multi -year monitoring p ogram. Conditions of Approval 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as follows have been incoraforated 5.1 Prior to issuance ofthe grad! permit the applicant shall provide, a. a site survey to quanta the t and revegetation amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. b. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location offenciug (both chain link; orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right-of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the Cityproof ofpermission from the State forfence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. 5.2 Prior to the closure ofBack Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate with, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department of Fish and Game for road closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to no* fy users ofBack Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant shall obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federallydisted California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director By Javier S. Gar •ia Senior Planner cc: Building Director Negative Declaration File Attachments: Acknowledgment of Receipt/Distribution List, dated October 22, 1999 CalTrans Letter, dated November 4, 1999 Memorandum from the Manager of Development Services, dated November 9, 1999 Letter from Dept. of Fish and Game, dated November 12, 1999 )RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATIONMEASQRES Action Verification Verification Person Date 4. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS(Pirth) 1. That the project shall mnt'omn to the National Pollution Conditionof Plan Check Piartotbeis-, Of DolargeEd"wmabon System(NPDES) mclu'veavnts and shall be whjestto approval gadmgpenmhProgam Public Wodos The approval of The Deputy City Manager or designated Department and the monrt«mgesablisbed Department NddmgPkpanhn wCityautltorwdGaadmg&ivner• priortotheissuanceof gadinglermit 2. An anund inspectim of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and Pmgammonh mg Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The fatilitm shall be inspected dung Approval routine monitoring by establisbadpricrmthe Department AprilorMayofeactnyean. Thereaftoftheimpectionsallbesubmittedto property owner issuance ofgadmg the City of Newport Beach &ddmg Department for review before Jame 1. permit Should it be determined flat the slope is continuing to shin lased upon the results of the annual mspectiom further remalial gradrWoonsfixticn wok shall be required as ridernured by the Building Department All remedial workreViredbythe City shall be completedbyNovember I ofthatyear. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by the Condition of Plan Check and Progammooitamg Public Works property ownr as determined by the City of Newport Beady Building Approval routine monitoring by establishe<Igiortothe Department Department. property owner issuaoceofgsad'mg permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures ofthe City's grading ordinance and all applicable local Condition of Plan Check Priortotbe issaabeof Public Works and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the approval gad'mgpermit Department City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Prior to issuance ofthe grading permit the applicant shalt provide written approval ofthe erasion control plan by the Regional Quality Control Board. S. BIOIAGICALRESOURCES 5. A ratified Ecologist shall oversee, the labiat restoration dining Condition of Plan Check Pricrtotheissauoeof Public Works The megata¢mg period and monitor maintenance and pr g Orange approval gradmgpe®rt. Department and the cusoictimfoEing shall be instdWakogthe edge ofthe coastal sag: scrub Planning Department habitat closesttothe construction area prior tothe start of construction. The cunstmch n fnc.%ng will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipmrrtiototbcoonstal sage scrub habitat Abido&familiarwith coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing The kncmg stall be maintained in place throghout wnstnnctiam period and removed only afiar all wmtructicn is completed All construction employees shall be instructed art to cow into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the 0011structionlencinz Page 1 AS REVISED NOVEMBER is, im 4Y MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 5.1 Riortoivaaceofthegaftp=*tbeapplicaot"poW Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Public Works Approval gaftpermit Department and the a a sitesurveyto quantitythetake andrevegelatien amounts ofooatial sage Plamin Department scrub involved. b. an:vegetebmplmdeidmglbetimmgofoaftg.spaoestobeplmted andthe'nr size (seed orcaotainwaodc)and amuffi-ymmmrtahgsdane andaddaikdcontmgaayplm mtheevmttMmxgetatimanotp=cssfd a a plot plan showrog the location of fmvg (bath dam link, orange construction fmcmgand sift fence),the location ofpropetyl'mm, rigtofway lines and list of ownesldp of adjamt parcels to the mI0d location. If any portion oftheproposedfencingis located on the State of Cal wri,Ecological Raerve,the applicant will provide to the City pcoot'ofpnnission&omthe State for fence placement and conduction aroem to the site and the accompanying catilicate of liability as approved by the State in the g2Ring ofacres 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay dries the applinrt shall coordinate Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuarceof Public Works with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Approval gnad'mgpeml Department and the Engireabgl)iv m)wAthe DVmti ntofFnhmdGamfmrwddosum Planing Department pemnrt and Haul Route Permit. The ckMame plan shall include some Public relatimv infonmabon or s ga program to notify urns of Back Bay Drive to Iduanthem ahead oftime tlatthe mad closure. h should date the rcasons why, the suggested time lire of the project and when the road may be � opened fwthea use. The Cityshall anfome tlris closure so that uses donut acme new trails around the barricades to the detriment of1M habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please inordinate my road closures with the Department ofFishand Game so llattlay can naiAain aooem on Bads Bay Drive for management and annancy purposes during the pojat's coostrucfm 53 Prior to removal of my coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant shall Condition of Plan Check Ptiortothe issuanceof Public Works dKamwritten wovakfiomthe Federal Government (U.S. Fish andWddlit'e approval @adiogpemrit Depatmmt and the Swice) relative toremoval ofooestal sage scrub babdat being ail'i-dbytte Planning Department Fedaslly-EstedE CaU m a. goatcatchm Consultation and ultimate amha'na5m from the Service n a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. Page 2 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 Md )RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATIONMEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 11. NOLSE 6. Construction activity shall be 1®ited to those hems allowed by Condition of Field Check Friortotheissusance of Building Department the City ofNewpmtBeach Noise Ordinance Soction1028.040 approval gadmgpamrt 15. CULTURALRESOURCES 7. Prior to the issuance of a gadmg permit, the project applicant Condition of Evidence of Priortotheissnanceof Planing Depakinent Shall provide vaium evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified approval paleontologist retained gad'mgpamrt and Building Dept paleontologist hasbastreta'vned to observe Wading activities and salvage and to perform site catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pro- surveillance. gadnhg caafamm. shall establish procedures for archmlogicaVpakodologcal resource smveilhoce, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer procedures for temporarily halting or redrterSmg wok to Front sampling iden ificatim, and evaluation of the fossils Ifmajor resawesare&wNered,which requfie laVe m hahmg or redirecting of Wading the paleontologist shall report such findaW to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beads. The paleontologist shall daamme appropriate actions, in coopaation with the pmjet developer, wfiidt ehsuro proper exploration anNa salvage. E7 VdWSodsshallbeofferedtothe City ofNewport Beach, or itsdesgna, on a Srst4efusal basis. The applicant may retain said £nods if vvxittm asaumrhoe isprovidedthat they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said fords are of spacial si� or a mhsa>m in Orange Canty indicates a desire to study and/m display them at the t®q in which case itaa6 shall be dahatedto the City. ordesgme. These actions, as well as find mitigation and dispositiOn of the moza . shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Mich. Prior to the final of the gadhng Pernik the pakatotogist shag submit a followup, report for approval by the City which stall include tin period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils farad, and present repository of the fossils F,.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\1PI.ANCOM\PENDING\PARENPTgATMSRTAB Page 3 AS REVISEDNOVEMBER 18. 1999 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POSTED N 0 V 17 1999 GARY L. 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3200 Clerk•RecorderNOTICE OF DETERMINATION Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA, 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of 17eterminanon in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: SCH# 99101045 Javier S. Garcia 949 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. This is to advise that the City ojNewport Beach has approved the above described project on November 15. 1999 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency - Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project - will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. - An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were - were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations - was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were - were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200. r � Javie S. Garcia, Senior Planner FSlGa In L. G anvcouil l Of orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clark/Recorder r 19998501252 MUM 11/11h9 856 6259319 06 52 Z03 1 1288.00 )RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 4. GEOLOGICPROBLESIS(Pacth) 1. That the project shall ennferm to the National Pollution Conditionof Pisa Check Priortotheissusaoeof Discharge Elimination System(NPDPS) regcremerts and shall be subject to approval vad"mgpemfd Program cWarks the approval of the Deputy City Manager or designated Department and the monitamgestabl ni Buttd'mgDepmtnatmCityaWh=mdCmAMFmg mw priartotheisuaoceof @aftpmna 2. An annul inspection of the completed f cilities shall be Conditionof Plan Check and Program Public Works completed by a registered geologisL The facilities shall be impacted during Approval routine monitoring by established tothe Department April orMayofeacnyear. Theresults ofthe inspection shall be submitted to property owner issuance the City of Newport Beach Budding' DepeMrrt for review before hue 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to shin based upon the results of the amain inspections, further romedial grading/constuctim work shall be required w determined by the Budding Ikpamnert. A0 remedial workrequ'nedbytheCitysball be conoctedbyNovembo 1 ofth ayear. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely na'v&AW by the Condition of Plan C and Pnogramuonrtaing Public Works property ow>g as determined by the City of Newport Beach Building Approval routine 'toing by establishedpiortotbe Department Department owmer issuarnceofgrad'mg permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures ofthe City's grading ordinance and all applicable local Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisumnce of Public Works and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the approval gndingpemrit Department City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sectioru). a. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES 5. Acerified EcDk& shall oversee the habitat restoration daring Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuarecof Public Works the revegatatiog period and monitor maintenance and progress, approval grad'mgpermrt Department and the castes mfercv shallbemralkdatntheedgeofthec=Wsage Planning Department habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start ofmastructi The construction fencing will pevat intrusion by constroerim and cgmpmaainto the coa%W sage scrub habitat Abiolog"st .. withooastal sage scrub habitat shall dined the location of the fenc* The Racing shall be maintained in place throughout on period and removed only after all onostmdion is completed.' employees shall be instructed not to enter into the ooias aW scrub habitat beyond the comhudionfencin& 5.1 Poi rtoissuarceofthngud'mgp=*theapplicaotshallpovidc, Conditionof Plan Check Priartotheissunoeof Public Works Approval gndirgpermrt Department and the a. a site surmyto guntifythetake andrevegdatiaa amounts ofatastal sage Planning Department scrub involved Page 1 6; AS REVISED NOVEMBER 15,1999 )RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVEDECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Ve ' tcation MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date b. arevegdmion plan deta iogthetiming of plaiting. specks to be Plaited and their size (seed or container stock) and a nxd&ycw monAaing scheme and a detailed ooatmgmry calm in the evert the nevegetation is ant suoorsAin1 c a plot plan showing the location of fencing (botlt chat lick, orange construction fencing and siltfence),the location ofproperty fins,rightof vay hires and list of ownership of adjacent Parcels to the subject location. If my portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will Provide to the Ciy proofofPerrmtition fiam the Stale for fence placermnt and construction access to the site and the accongwryhrg certificate of liability as approved bli the State in the granting ofacoess. 52 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate Condition of Plan Check totheissuanceof Public Works with the City of Newport Beady Public Works Depatrmet (Traffic Approval gnadingpermit Depannead and the E Tbami ng Dividm) andit Department ofFah and Game fmroad closure Planning Department permit and Haul Route Permit The clone plan shall include some public relations nd'anWim or sign program to notify uses of Bad: Bay Drive to ial'armifem stead oft®ettattte road daeae. It alrould state the reason why, the suggested time lime of the project and wlrn the mad may be re. Opened fir their user The City shall eni'orce this dawn so that users do not create new trails amuodthe barricades to the ddrintat of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. ).lease oomd'mate any mad doaum with the DepadmentofFishand Game an that they cannubtam access on Bair Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes dunrg the pmjad's construction. 53 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant stall Candid of Plan Check Priortotheiss , of Public Works obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (US. Fah andWildlit'e appro al gad'mgpermh Department and the Service) relative to removal ofmastal sage scrub babdat beingutil'ved bythe Planning Department Fedeta0y4isted Califar is gr#catdrr. Comubaticn and ultimate authorintim ficm the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. It. NOISE Lwas, 6. Construction activity shall be linrited to allowed by Condition of Field Check Priortotheissuaoceof Building Department dwCtyofNsrpmtBeachNoiw0rdtaooeSedim102&040 approval 13rading1ennit Page 2 AS REVISEDNOVEMBER 15, 1999 —L� )RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of ResponijbIC Verification MITIGATIONMEASURES Action Verification Verification P n Date 15. CULTURALRESOURCES 7. Ain to the issuance of a grading pemhA, the project applicant Condition of Evidence of Aiertotheissuanoeof Planning Department Shall provide written evidence to the City ofNewpat Beads that a qualified approval paleontologist retained gadmgpemdt and Building Dept paleontologist has 6emretamadto absave gradingactivium adsah-ap and to perform site catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist stall be present at the pre. surveillen tgadiog conkarce, shall establish procedures fw resource sunm_ � and shall esfabliSlt, m wopetation with the project developer, procedures for tempor u* halting or redirecting wok to pamR sampling ident'ffication, and evatuaitm of the fossils. lfmajorardedogical/paleartologicai resources are discovered, which requite longterm batting or redwing of grad n& the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer said to the City of Newport Beach The paleontologist shall detenume appropriate action; in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper esplaabon ad/ur salvage Etaavatedfnds shall be offered to the City ofNewpoRBeach, or its dcsighce, on afirstaefusal basis. The applicant may rdam said finds ifwntteh assurance is provided that they will beproperlypreserved in Orange County, unless said fords are of special dgx fkano, or a museum in Orange County indicates a des'ue to 9hdy armor display them at the tiase, in vNc h case itcos shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as food mitigation and disposition of the resomocs, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading pamlt, the paleontologist shall subad a follaw up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of uupedion, a catalogw and analysis of the fossils found, and pnesert repository of the fmtik. Page 3 OAS REVISED NOVEMBER 15,1999 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POSTED 3300N enwport ort Beach, CA 926 8- 9151768 NOV 17 1999 (949)644-3200 GARYL. LLE,Cleik-Recorder NOTICE OF DETERMINATION oY To: to From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division Date received for filing at OPR: P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA, 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section. 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: SCH# 99101045 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-32 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description. The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. This is to advise that the City offewport Beach has approved the above described project on November 15. 199.9 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency = Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project Z will 0 will'not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were = were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations = was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were = were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Planning The final or Negative Declaration 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bearoval is ch, available CA 92658-8915 a949/644-3D Depart- meoject nt 200. I City of Newport rt Beach, ' Filec in the county of orange, california Javie S.Garcia,SeniorPlanner Gary L. pranviile, Clerk/Recorder 19998501252 09;04am 11/17/99 856 6259319 06 52 Z03 1 1288.00 'r LSh I.M Aaaoclal a, Inc. To: Citv of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner Date. November 16, 1999 TRANSMITTAL Transmitted: o Foryour review ❑ Foryourfiles ■ Atyourrequest ❑ Foryourinformation ❑ Foryour approval o Distribution subject. CDFG Fee Project: Park Newport Apartments Project #. PNP 830 Date 11/16/99 Copies Description Check for CDFG Fee for Environmental Review of Negative Declaration Slope Stability Repair Work, Park Newport Apartments The above are transmitted: ■ Herewith ❑ Under separate cover ❑ Fria: General Remarks: Enclosed is a check made payable to the County Clerk, County of Orange for required Califor- nia State Department of Fish and Game Environmental Document Review fee. The check is in the amount of $1 250 for review of the above referenced Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please call us at (949) 553-0666. Copies to: By. Joan One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 949 553-0666 Irvine, California 92614 Facsimile 949 553-8076 o3/31/94(:+ronms1rnANSMrr. d) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5, South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue -� San Diego, CA 92123 (619)467-4201 FAX 467-4239 RECEIVED BY November 12, 1999 PLANNING R N!`NPO T MENT CITY OFEA H Mr. NOV 1 � 19�9 . Javier Garcia, Senior Planner PM City of Newport Beach 7(�(9 (10 (11(12 (1i2i8(4i8(6 Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration for Slope Stability/Repair Work.(Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments Dear Mr. Garcia: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Negative Declaration regarding the Slope Stability/Repair Work at the Park Newport Apartments Complex located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Department requests the following clarifications be made on the project prior to approval of the grading permit: The Negative Declaration does not quantify the amount of coastal sage scrub vegetation to be removed nor the amount to be revegetated. The document only states that a revegetation ratio of 2.5:1 will be used following the grading work that needs to be done to stabilize the slope. Please quantify both the take and the revegetation amounts. The document should provide revegetation plan details, such as timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi -year monitoring scheme should be proposed. There should be a specified contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. The document discusses the installation of fencing at the toe of the slope. The Department requests the specific location(s) of the fencing (both chain link and the silt fence) in order to determine if the fencing will be on the State's Ecological Reserve property. If it is, the City will need to request authorization for fence placement and for construction access from the Department. Also, the City will need to provide a certificate of liability to the Department for the duration that the fencing is in place. The Negative Declaration also states that there will be no public access -related issues because Back Bay Drive has been closed to the public since the winter of 1997. This is inaccurate. The City removed the barricades and began allowing public access along Back Bay Drive some months ago. This project will likely cause temporary impacts to the public's use of Back Bay Drive. The Department requests that if the City intends on closing Back Bay Drive, it should do some public relations with the users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road will be closed to the public. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City should also enforce Mr. Javier Garcia November 12, 1999 Page 2 this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department so we can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Finally, the document does not state that is has received approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service should be a condition of the Negative Declaration. In conclusion, the Department concurs with the proposed project if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily. The Department sees the slope stabilization and revegetation as a positive impact and a benefit to the species and habitats of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Questions and comments may be directed to myself at the letterhead address, or to Erick Burres, Reserve Manager, at (714) 377-0684. Thank you for the opportunity to -comment on this Negative Declaration. Sincerely, w/ Theresa A. Stewart Senior Biologist Land Management and Monitoring Program cc: C.F. Raysbrook, Regional Manager, San Diego Bill Tippets, San Diego Erick Burres, Huntington Beach John Scholl, Newport Beach Jack Faucher, FWS, Carlsbad �...:..:. ` STATE OF CALIFORNIA �ooF� Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse TIMV Gray Davis STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 Loretta Lynch GOVERNOR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-3044 DIRECTOR 916-445-o613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/cleannghouse.html ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: October 22, 1999 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Javier S. Garcia CITY OF RE 1ArpORT ['EACFI City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd OCT 2 7 1999 P.O. Box 1768 AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 71819110111112111213141818 RE: 1 Park Newport SCH#: 99101045 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: October 12, 1999 Review End Date: November 10, 1999 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission Caltrans, District 12 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. Ito 0�4a S5"5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BY DISTRICT 12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 CITynF I A/r IRVINE, CA 92612-0661 Fi ')PT (' E'ACH ,ate AM NOV, 0 5 1999 PM 71819110111112,112,3141BIg November 4, 1999 ,Javier Garcia, Senior Planner IGR/CEQA - City of Newport Beach SCH# 99101045 Planning Department ND 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Log # 636 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) — Park Newport Apartments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration (ND) for the Slope Stability and Repair Work proposed project for the Park Newport Apartments Complex. The proposed project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay and will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comments. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. eSocely fie,RC of Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR MEMORANDUM November 9, 1999 TO: Jay Garcia FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Park Newport grading After reviewing the subject document, there is one aspect which should be changed. The proposed Mitigation Measures 1,2 & 3 should be rewritten to delete reference to the Public Works Department. MM Nos. 2 & 3 are most directly associated with the Building Department as they relate to work on private property. MM No. 1 now falls to the Deputy City Manager. (l think he picked up the NPDES program at last night's City Council Meeting.) so] 11/12141999 13:44 6194674239 CA DEPT FISH AND GAM PAGE 05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5, South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 467-4201 FAX 467-4239 November 12, 1999 Mr. Javier Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beacll Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration for Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments Dear Mr. Garcia: The Department of Piste and Game (Department) has reviewed the Negative Declaration regarding the Slope Stability/Repair Work at the Park Newport Apartments Complex located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Department requests the following clarifications be made on the project prior to approval of the grading permit: The Negative Declaration does not quantify the amount of coastal sage scrub vegetation to be removed nor the amount to be revegetated. The document only states that a revegetation ratio of 2.5:1 will be used following the grading work that needs to be done to stabilize the slope. Please quantify both the take and the revegetation amounts. The document should provide revegetation plan details, such as timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi year monitoring scheme should be proposed. There should be a specified contingency plan in the evenf the revegetation is not successful. The document discusses the installation of fencing at the toe of the slope. The Department requests the specific location(s) of the fencing (both chain link and the silt fence) in order to determine if the fencing will be on the State's Ecological Reserve property. If it is, the City will need to request authorization for fence placement and for construction access from the Department, Also, the City will need to provide a certificate of liability to the Department for the duration that the fencing is in place. The Negative Declaration also states that there will be no public access -related issues because Back Bay Drive has been closed to the public since the winter of 1997, This is inaccurate. The City removed the barricades and began allowing public access along Back Bay Drive some months ago. This project will likely cause temporary impacts to the public's use of Back Bay Drive. The Department requests that if the City intends on closing Back Bay Drive, it should do some public -relations with the users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road will be closed to the public. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City should also enforce 1111W1999 13:44 6194674239 , A Mr. Javier Garcia November 12,1999 Page 2 CA DEPT FISH AND GAM PAGE 06 this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department so we can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Finally, the document does not state that is has received approvals from the Federal Government (U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service should be a condition of the Negative Declaration. in conclusion, the Department concurs with the proposed project if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily. The Department sees the slope stabilization and revegetation as a positive impact and a benefit to the species and habitats of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Questions and comments may be directed to myself at the letterhead address, or to Erick Burres, Reserve Manager, at (714) 377-0684. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Negative Declaration. Sincerely, Theresa A. Stewart Senior Biologist Land Management and Monitoring Program cc: C.F. Raysbrook, Regional Manager, San Diego Bill Tippets, San Diego Erick Burres, Huntington Beach John Scholl, Newport Beach Jack Fancher, FWS, Carlsbad Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A•6214, September 29, 1961, and A•24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City, of Costa Mesa, County of -Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates. October 12, 1999 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 12 , 1999 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration he! been prepared bg the � Clly of ttlewport eect at the The Is A oc- on the 2 Dec - .and CHECKLIST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS [ ] Negati Declaration package Notice of Completion form Negative Declaration form Initial Study checklist and analysis Exhibits/attachments Wigation on monitoring program Public hearing notice (Hearing date: / $38.00 County Clerk tiling fee [ ] Concurrence from lead division if not Advance Planning Contact Person: [ ] Consultation with applicant regarding mitigation measures [ ] Posting period: 10'-12—let +b -12-kej 20 days (no state or regional issues) 30 days (state review required) [ j Posting locations: CountyClerk 10-12-4 `% �+ Project site (o-tb-49 V City hall to -It-9p —� Newspaper (,9 --1 'L- r19 ✓ State Clearinghouse (Notice of Completion+ 10 copies) Direct mail to adjacent property owners and residents [ ] Dist ribption: V File A44"L�,\ Lead planner Applicant or Ci contactCity Public agencies - - HOAs Private s3ouns L Individuals [ ] Notice of Determination (Date filed: ) [ ] State Clearinghouse [ ] County Clerk Department of Fish and Game fee status Exempt (Notice of Fee Exemption form + $38 filing fee) Not exempt ($1250 fee + $38 filing fee) Revised 1/21/981/21198-3126/97 F:\Planning\Users\Shared\lforms\neg-dec\ndchklst MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Garcia(JGARCIA@CITY.NEWPORT-BEACH.CAUS.) FROM: Kevin Culbertson DATE: October 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Contacts Per our cwnver Theresa Stewart U- Associate Wildlife Biologist Dept. of Fish and Game 4949 Vewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Karl Schwing Coastal Program Analyst California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-3402 j:\apps\wp5lnet\jay CPfY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City ofNewport Beach (949) 644-3200 SUBJECT; NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILING se Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the $3nd� ¢named at the If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. I Javi r S. Garcia, enior Planner Date: October 12, 1999 F.WSEWLMHARMIFORMS X)-DEC04-COVRMFM FilGaryn`. Granvilcounty le (Clark/Recorderornia POSTED 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111138,00 19998501118 08;55am 10/12/99 OCT 0 8 1999 $56 6251013 06 52 Z01 1 38.00 GA RANVII , Clefaeccoorideet BY v .1�4 '•'x[<n �. :N-1T'. '•x1 �P .�• �`�_C'ry� �'t�• \L- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 'e O S T E D Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 j' (949) 644-3200 p C T p g 1999 NEGATIVE DECLARATION QU L. 3MVILLE. To: F om: City ofNcwport Beall F DEPUTY Planning Departmen Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street. Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) F7County Clerk. County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 IPublic review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999' I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the cast side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this FIRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. _ Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California EnvironmentaLQuality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. I-�t A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. if you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Qat,ir t Date Javier S. Glucia Senior Planner F:\USERSNLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDMG\PARI NPTNEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: I Public review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 1- Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and Iona -term performance. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. of A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached 13 on file at the Planning Department. The initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. 9&.;. Date t o'k69 Javier S. O rcia Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLMSHAREDIIPLANCOWENDNG\PARKNPI W EGDEC T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM , Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities, and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projeces surroundings.) The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area, The areas to the south, east, CHECKLIST Page 1 and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. , 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils ❑ Hazards/ Iazardous Materials ❑ Agricultural Resources 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance CHECKLIST Page 2 2 DETERtMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ Ifind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposod project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ Javier S. Garcia Printed Name l QL__ Date F:IUSERS1PLMSHARED%I PLANCOWENDINOWARKNPT2\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 3 v w Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Siyhlticant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ Q ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 4 Potentially Potentially T Less than No sianmeant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Eff existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result In conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ ❑ ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ Including liquefaction? d) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 5 C r Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ pj that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ �J( defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ gj supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? V. HYDROLOGY. Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CHECKLIST Page 6 r 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 6) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, Including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? VI. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be re►fed upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Potentially V Le" than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless 161poct Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q( ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ B1 ❑ ❑ ❑ BJ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ B1 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ CHECKLIST Page 7 Y 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? 6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation ' Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bj ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No 9lgnlnant slgn"Icant algniticant Impact Impact unless Impact Msagedon Incorporated 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ Qj or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Vill. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project; 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly through habitat modifications, on any species Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Qj any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ (t7f ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Ct1ECKUST Page 9 14 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Idipact Mitigation Incorporated• 6) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IX. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ 01 ❑ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local, general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ E ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? 4) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Y Lass than No significant significant significant Impact Impact Unless wpect Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working In the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 physically interferewith an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a ❑ b ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed with wildlands? A. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels In excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase In ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ❑ increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CHECKLIST Page l j r� r Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 1z private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Qj requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? CHECKLIST Page 12 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid Waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the project 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Potentially Less tMn No significant significant significant Impact Impact Unless *pact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ jf. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ B( ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ i CHECKLIST Page 13 ';, 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XVI RECREATION. 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Signiflcant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation ' Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 21. ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 14 potsnually potowally Laaa than No signincsnt slgnllicant Slgnincant impact Impact unins Igtpact Miugsdon Incorporaw XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ C) ❑ �y7f to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ (�7( are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and4he effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ Bj environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F.\USERMMSHARED11 FORMSWEG•DEC)CKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department,tCity of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program FIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January, 9, 1990 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air QualiityManagementPlan 1997. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air QualityManagementPlan FIR, 1997. 10. South Coast air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 11. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14,1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 13. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 14. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 15. Biological Assessment ofProposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. 16. LSA Associates, 1999. Draji EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98-061113. July 1, 1999. 17. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9 18. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July 1'7 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS r City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644.3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannin Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the lop of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does notpropose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. in - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December $, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The arcs proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites In Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an avbrage slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 fat in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradingterosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal ProaramUnd Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the Past Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Would the proposed project: L Physically divide an established community! No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would -the project: I. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. /G 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non• agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Pooulation/Housine Would the project: L Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. 'Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. Z Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact, The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, Injury, or death involving: (a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra,1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. (b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impart. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. (c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. (d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses. and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items -,I 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands2), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and lull; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas ofexisting vegetation. State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created,lstored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roadsshall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall, be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. Less than Significant Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be mini- mized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will com- ply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soli that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or oft site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is it corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 18.1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not availablefor the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 4 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. S. Hvdroloey Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? �S No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted -development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact, The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease.the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river# In a manner which would result In substantial erosion or siltation on. or off - site? Less Than Significant impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirety planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting In an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on oroff site. 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substadtial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decreaseahe recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Quality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive t0 receptor; to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ,Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: i All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the followmg'measures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: i On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturers specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six. weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for 12 a0 I the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. S. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. .,,.. �.M., 1911=1 Or,t'.. , Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which Is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (f.e.) result in a substantial Increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic, Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and 13 pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to bea change intheenvironment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. 14 Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay [rive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay, There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. & Dialogical Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saligmss, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper tail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgmss; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP,1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species to local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1. thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 15 As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will'prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February I through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub.habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The 16 remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. S. Co*Rkt mitk-aey local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. c. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an envircintnentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatehers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, 17 which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d, above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Mt &ation Measure No. 5 A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained implace throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? is -�r No impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local,'state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one•quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e.. usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). however, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar high School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. A. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. S. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19 No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome nosie levels would not be significant 3. A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ' No .impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise Is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City or Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28,040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. will reduce potential short-term noise 21 level impacts to a level of insigniftcanee. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? 22 2t No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in cTemand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 13. amities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result In the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, them are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. �. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainagcfacilities or expansion or existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact, The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. 4. Have sufficleat water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Ne Impact. Tito project doesmt require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. S. Result in a de .. nation by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve ,the prtdtct that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. ,11L lie served by a laadlitl wi& su117cient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's *lid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not requite the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to soUd waste? No Impact. The project Will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 23 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s Gene Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect si applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of nat and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Opt and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and OI Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, ar with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines froi and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develo 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily 24 discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting' from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less -than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short -terns aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. IS. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gathershellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine odented,economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Buy area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the 25 adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish dJ procedures for archeologicallpaleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long. term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in grange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the city of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, Including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project; 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive, The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on 27 the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the constmction'or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findines of Sieniticance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore; there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a 28 beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063(c)(3](D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope afand adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less titan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and at amw to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 29 so San Bernardino 6 County J r� Los Angeles County 57 71 r \ 9 ao 1 5 st \ t5 Riverside County +� 55 Orange \ 22 1 405 % 55 County 41 133 73 4 0 1 1 1 74 I j 1 PROJECT 1� � ,ea SITE o � I o � O � i San Diego v r P County L -'•L 8/13/99(PNP830) Figure 1 4116 Scale in Miles SAo 6 Regional Location 1. @a-. Coiling �.�- •.ter.. i Source: USGS 7.5' 4 '4, •4 BLUFF do SLIDE : REVEGETATION k:.'' f f 9 • Ib 81131"(PNP830) 4? N L["�� Scalein fat A\J -r�� o 1000 2000 =yy9�1 i'•t�` :, yam° �� . +wn'�,�I. •5 y 11 rl u r 'r • 1 Y• •• 1'JM�• RIti.IhAii • ••✓ Sall •rt•• 5' Er`poet4ort , $1 _� 5 � rG0 .•hT TttlnAn ♦ / ti �b l • it a ` ',. � 1 ' 'rty.. 5 i14 NA! F.•j� '� � l �� .,fit `r t • ' i 1 R �^ •A� 5 ' ec Laguna Beach, Cafif." aalltaaaa i Figure 2 Project Location 1 s' 'ter r '*w„y..�•� ae r ~n, a''" •._� + �r N1i:(i: 1 `•:.\� `'�O!!•'�•�. .Yr fOft „1 PARKNEWP `TAPARTMENTSNMI it .1._ . •� � !( 'y' f •r-•-.-�. ��...�_ � 1[i<i t.'--c►•F� *i•/r •.� .' i.. L.�}: _ :! . /� �/.'ry :s�! /./Lf�f 't, + / .i'•�..`Fbr:_A�''... •E � l � ; .r+ � '•4, � • • �" + ' ♦ r ri /'i: ; /f � i •—*� ..� •gyp' f .'� `"+� l ;, , ,�+j �S -` �s �• Fij '• f ..��-•' --'.Y: • •.ice—�'".'_.�. ^ - i•�+' yj1�.�� . �� 7rJ / ,�• • ,..ice' ^.•—�'.. :. '_ — __ _ __ _ _ _ _.. .17 ��r�''✓� if:','' �� UPPtrNewportBa! LEGEND: Slide ¢narocmrua¢am LSh Scale in Feet �s "Mww—iso Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site r� z� d .. "'_T..`'� �• fit. `i ' 7pprn (imnlrNah - - llnunrinr r - - ' l i_@ACK_ORIV__x�-� u• i ( tee' o�'� y`/',.,i. Ilk t I � , � - :tee *: �i • ••/ / /i '/ r ,/ Source: R33F. � � /�%/'-' s• .�.� ��: '� %% ; 3/13/99(PNP8301 N:� LSD mw Feet 3-0 60 CIS came fw.uo ,oaL'iw.• Figure 5 Grading Plan LEGEND: Pli I Galaxy Park 2 Eastbluff Remnant 'tot ..... .... .. 3 Eastbluff Park - a . to , , 4b th fl4l�I, L all .4 Kso-,.. C011E" source: I BLUFF& SLIDE REVEGETATION t it 1511.1/W(PNP1130) 416 N Sale in Fowl LSAQ 100 2000 r MME Figure 6 View Locations is • LSA Associates, Inc. Principals Rob Bolen Sheila Brady Les Card David Clore Ross Dobbertern Steve Graubolm Richard Harlacher Roger Harn'l An Homrighausen Larry Kennings Laura Lafler Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Anthony Petros Rob Schonholtz Makolm J. Sproul Lloyd B. Zola Associates James Baum Connie Calics Tung-cben Chung, Ph.D. Steven W Conkling Gary Dora Jack Eaton Richard Erickson Kevin Fin cher Frank Hascton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Malamut Sabrina Nicbolls M. W. 'Bill' O'Connell Deborah Praolio Amy Skemes-Cox Lynette Stanebina Jill Wilson O'Conner LS/y May 25, 1999 Mr. Loren Hays US Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Dear Loren: Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the completed survey forms are attached for your review. The six surveys were made one week apart, except between the fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly as possible so that it is completed, including the-revegetation of the slide area, before the onset of the winter rains. -They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff and cut the away the cryptogamie crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is in- stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding the permit process. 525/99«P:\PNP830\gnatsurveyltcwpd» ,a One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 949 533-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Irvine, California 92614-5981 Facsimile 949353-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvinah4@I$a-ass0e rum n, 0 • LfA Anodain, Inc. Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. if you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at (949)553-0666. Sincerely, ISA ASSOCIATES, INC. M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Rostoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar & Associates Kevin Culbertson, Culbertson and Adams Attachment ♦/ 5SSM(p.MS30*nWwvrA(t wpd)) 2 •Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc.z,No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad /CAGN/CAVR SURVBZ FORM / Site: 136e Investigators: On Date: ✓�.2i Starting Time: f,,'�/S� Stopping Time: 7!S"O Conditions (Veather 5 Temperature): / Start: C/ Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals_ Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: 0 C.. ao/, 4i -- n o Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. nr-ela- C4/I-n�nieC� 9 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: ,Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 2 Other important plants ee a /&& Y�S 5'" Comments: *Uses Joh, Habitat Areas and The 3 ssociates, Inc. tem dated May 1992 prepared by * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be " collected vithin a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. %%+;4 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS) CONDUCTED BY' PROJECT NA. Ei 1.Locatlon of ilia survey area: 2. De4criplion of survey methods: 3. How frequently Witt tapb vocalization used (If at all): rj%� -L _ s.. ` f � �•d'7�7p S� /d a.�ir �P ♦n /�rp. 4. Total number of surveys: 410 s Data s s 2, Blol ist e %3•` C�,.,� W then G ew y Tan erature GZ� VMS Stxvoyad Pot E2LOIIlst Pat Day 3 —' Aoule Used /it /c e.. 6. Gnatcatcher slghltng(s):• Number Me' six G. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s)•! Number sox 7. Provide a qualitative ascription of the plant cc9gmuniltes (I cluds dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the= survey area: e � S�/99 I / e I, 'Sea map for locatlon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent jttvenlle, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. ' s s Pape i `_ c Site: Inve . Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Qua d :r '� �u•'I"f �cCs stigatars: .Z/�O CiFw t�� Date: Starting Time: •',�D Stopping Time: Conditions (Veather & Temperaturs): Start: GL Clee,r Stop: 3 clo c v Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant /1 Rel. Cover 2.t ��e 7C Ctc.�tSc Gi 30 %_ 3. 41 c/us. C N / rnic �--+ -- — 4. Avg. Height /.i Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 Other important plants `,eqr lam. Comments: * Use Orange County's Habitat Classi John Gray and David Bramlet and Me County Parks and Open Saace Areas dated May 1992 prepared by rvev the Vegetation of Ora: 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associa6c�, �•.�• * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. J 1994 COASTAL CALIF O NIA GNATCA��ER SURVEYS) CONDUCTED BY el PROJECT NA. & ^,7 %r,,,Vt s✓� % Ja /3'r�si r 1. Location of tine survey area: 2. tlescriptlon of shrvsy methods: d. NOW frequently wai taps vocalization used (If at aln: 44 ,- 9Ore Tla '6P A. Total turmberofsurveys- !— D to s S/yam Bb Ist a /3./ t� �'c�--•,� W�alher c a Tem eralure Ares surveyed Pw Bldoglst Per Day Aoule Used ,- G 3 3 5. Gnatcatcher slghting(s)•: Number A e•' Sex 6. Brown-headod cowbird slghting(s); Number A .. Sex T. ProvIde a qualitative description of the plant communities (Include dominant species and habltet quality) on and adjacent to the i survey area: SQ e 4y1!5 2!9 'See map for locatbn(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nesllkig, and unknown. Pago 1 Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon -No. Mapped loc. No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad CAGN/CAVR SURVR7 FORM A*' / EGG" bow L�/i 7-S "/'ri�.� �n. ode/�irn/��I Investigators: /( . L// (2DLO Date: Starting Time: G'ao Stopping Time: ^7; zS' Conditions (Veather 6 Temperature): Start: sy F Stop: !Cr o/I'-- Clee r Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Plant Rel.. Cover Avg. Height. ,.aDDominant 1(/ Q fG 1. t�/1Gf�G� C4�-l'Or nICG. O 2. e C a. 3. �. t� a ho r., e y+h P 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 X gap; X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants r d iH/G Ui Comme ts: SC2 e S t r * Use Orange County's Habitat John Gray and David Bramlet dated May 1992 prepared by rvnv the Vegetation of Ora * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. G Or n. t4- 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY ��L' �. Ca -.- PROJECT NAME . ir/��R.�� 1. Location of the survey area: 2. Description of survey methods; S. How frequentlywa! taps vocalization used (if ataln: i. Total number of surVeys: Dates B s Weather Te eralurs Aaas Swayed Per BlologistParl)av Roils Used 0-ce'.�� G' oear,�.. �riNn �/ �^.y't' 3 RA /O 6. dnatcatcher slghting(s): G. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s): Numbst A . sex t9unba Sex. T. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) -on and adjacent to the survey area: Se s - - ,-e v h&—)/ 07e ?: d 'See map for loealion(s). 'Age categories to be used are aduk, Independent Juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 • Survey No. Polygon No. Happed loc. No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEY FORM Site: Investigators: v. r Date: Starting Time: /, ; yS-AM Stopping Time: Conditions (Veather 3 Temperature): / Start: S'S°% C/�" N✓ e Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals_ Sex: Hale / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: (' r,re/,a.•' ��+�� ' Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 11 1. e A/ C� C-0 eL 2. fi, /�c-2LOSCO -S 3. �w C/ ..� Ga� l �yn/cv.h /- Z i ee7' 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 Other important plants , o c.cu/• y veep fx,1, /o ,` Comm ts: ,c TTe •i f— P qq /f N it ' e A/ G �, 11-A 5 J �fv ram^ /i Y• �C y(s•+,/-�A G fin/ ye' rejc • S CX J2e ev * Use Ore Orai County's Habit Classification System datedyH 1992 prepared by John Gray, and David Hramlet and Hethods`usseed to Survey-the°'Vegefvtdatedion fFebri 10, 1993 by Jones & stores assuiz a— , ��• * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' CO C r 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY1� �J l',,�,,, , y // +• PROJECT NA, E 1. Location of the survey area: 2. Daiiedptlon of aittvay methods: 3. now frequently wa3 taps vocalization used (it at slo: 4. Total number of surveys:_ 7� Data s) y1 9 Bio at c / ICO Weather G ItMO turn AasaSwnyadPw 81 3 erDa Bouts Used rg /OM��Q 17el 0*+ , S. Gnatcatcher sightings)' S. Brown -headed cowbird alghting(s):• Numbw A a•• Sax Nuabor AgT Sex s T. Provide a qualitative desctipilo of trps plant communities (incl a dorninantspeclesand habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area:`f�r749 'See map for location(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently lledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 Site: Inve • 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVRZ FORM stigators: ��G, � tiell Date: 2 Conditions (Veath Start Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: * Habitat type: �Dominant Plant r 1. Onyyce%L C G� t ern.cw 2. n./e scer�s 3. Starting Time: 5-0 . Stopping Time: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Rel. Cover Avg. Height 30 0 -6 Pee fI/ S v - ec T 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 ® 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 Other important plants - 10-35 35-60 >60 * Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Orange County Parks and open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Properr-dated Februar; 10, 1493 by Jones b Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. i. - 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCIiER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY _ f. �. // ' �f • 0 PROJECT NA, E° I. Location of the survey area: 2. Vscripllon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wa3 taps vocalization used (It at *IQ: A. Total number of surVeys: 62 Oates t3k ! s Weather Ta eralure Acres Surveyed For 91 ist Par Da Routs Used , 3,1ro �e,,.,�ir y srs 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number A e•• Sax T. Provide a qualitative descrtptl 9n of the plant survey area: �Qe -�Oy" Sy r+rj 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s)! NumberAM.. Sex (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 'See -map for locailon(s). 'Age categories to be used are adult, independent juventle, dependent juvenile, recenilylledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. I� Pago 1 • • Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc-'-No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVB7 FORM Site: Inves Date:! S- ' Starting Time: , ; 2 S-&" Stopping Time: 7 WO 19/'1 Conditions (Weather S Temperature): Start: Stop: J-=g, t7ea! Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Hale / Female 'Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: / / , * Habitat type:a ( nceltL Cheh4rolPadscrYA2 Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. HeighC 1. �»c Pot. 6/;TrOrtilC G- D 2. cC>. sr-eHs 2 3. e�l=,,ems,-, / - z P'e 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 80 (9 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Other important * Use John cation System dated Ha 1 ods used to Survey the Ve •J � YBGO q13 �" rtls, o- vied /i6'•'• prepared by tion of Orange County Parks and Ooen Space Areas and The Irvine company rry C�_,� �_�__ •__ 10, 1993 by Jones b Stokes Associates, Inc. * All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X•herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY %/ n / PROJECT NA. E ��,. e , �/e ��a , r- 1. Location of (he survey area: 2. f)e9crlptlon of survey methods: S. How frequently we& tap& vocalization used (it at all): 4.Totai number of surveys: _6 0 Dale(s)BIo st s Weather Tam erature Aas,SurveyadPat 8101091st Per Day Routs Used 7- Qf 5. Gnalcatcher sighting(s)! Number JAM.. sax 7. Provide a qualitative survey area: /i/e rri G. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Nambar A a•• nsex species and habitat and adjacent to the 'See map for location(s). *Age categories to be used are adult, independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. 0 Pago 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. '�-7 1 AND RI"RTINGPROGRAM SIIMMARY Pads Newport Gradiq Project Park Newport Apattmetb October 12,1999 impkMeagtioa Method of Tio wet RespaarVAC Ve ttlead a NMGATIONMb1SORLS Acdm Verdkatim Verilkattam pa am Data t GDDIAfACPItOIt[>>ME([aA) L Mt 6 pajw drr oubm b to NWmd Polpim CmMosd mmaw& Ph rbl6eilwamof Died VEkA jCmSptm(NlDE4)PrametsmdAAbs=*dla gwovol it pmsap p — wo" ie1powtdisHiieWrdaDytbmdsadinBml SDapatomtar ma'.- . mbwwwd Depaeast CitymemindOea- E"*W piarblsihw�d an 2. An d i"a" dfis owfWod hcMm AM be dii Coamor Check C6eand PPg ns� PoWieWade ooVWedbyaanpaldpdapt MwhcWmdd&imperYd&rim APProval rmtieaemsariwgby od*Medpiwbdw Deparaset Apritarldydendya7&amdnddteimpK6=Adl&mdwiedb pmipattya iwsmedpamg laQtyarNewptHr&I�ieWabDGstrtorwwewldaelasL PIMA Sbaedd it&dtnmisdtlstdedaps it coati®Kb AC &rdrymt& rembor a andinPuSatyfat6rnmedi, , -9aaa, , wmk AsIbe VdmdmddwdmdbydwPdAcWadmDio*z Air®aid vm& I�iedby*eCtyAgboamgiredbyNav=Wldmtym 3. 7& omtaeed rdis bd be me6mdy mmitid by to Cmdiianar Plan Check and Prapama+mtaiK Pa— wada pgw1yvmrmddmmkwt"CiydNewpat Bsdt Pabie Wade Approval matins mmitagby uWAbadpirlogm Dgmbmed Dvwkmt. peopictyow iamnoed/a&s PMA 4. 7be pojwi reR omwly With *a ataion and SuLabm mdidassmtadtYe Cityypadiyaadimm+i andalIVAea okcal Cmdidmof PLoCbedt Priafol6sba or Pait, aWadu sod Sh& bm'idey ands and aeimk &mW iaidd'eas kda ft t& Vprovd waftpad Depabved City Fsnradm and C#a- Code (NBMC Satiaa 15.04140 or appHC"mdlem)6 S. BlOLOGWALIMOUF M S. AmIm'EWopatWwnssdwhditnidoeiianAmin Cmdtimor PbnChxk PriorwAwimmear FArlewo" is aewyts&S pried sad nmeiar msiasmos and papa amp $W*Vd /+Ripe t DVwkmd and the amdummfseiSaW&iaadidakaK6edSe d6eamtataapesoob PI - Dspwbwd liittalswb6sastmtimamapeorrotaaotdaaaratiam 7& oasraaSaa hm*S wi pww idoim by ameaaoim wodus d equy�t ide ie omtd ayi smb bsbiet Abido& hmWw wb caw" ayemob &6iMt" dowtto bmtian d!e omWammhoft 7& faadoit am petid d msmddyadhraltomWrdosi a Oealpltad Alaasandmm¢tjts *udio "be imm atom yt ws iia*a oowd aatah h&Mbrymdfr ooamueBm 1L NO= C Ctsmailureirtya b*bmbdtoisa6omWkwdby Coaditimd FeddC6sk Ptisbisiaumed BddiyDspaAsat bCitydNewpatHtlNosCeismeSmmhjdo7R010 appor" vaftpmmk Page 1 xi )RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date IS CULTURALRPSOURCES % Poor to the boom of a puff pm the pojat applicant Condition of Evide= of Prig W theissuaooeof Planning Depart SW provide wrimmevkk=tothe CityofNewport Badrthat aqualified approval paleontologist retained gadiogpram@ and Building Dept p kartokgulhasbemretamedto oireve Wading activities and salvage and to perform site cdaloex fossils as neoesay. The pskodologni shall be preseri at the pm survedlma, gadag aoofermx shall establish procedures for resmme aaver7lmoq and shall estabi* in Coopration with the pojod dsvdopa, proaAues fa tmVoranly lashing a red'ir work to psnid savrpimg ideuaifiation, and evaluation of the falls lfmgw arrizolopealtakontoftiral resa rmsare dssoove ed, which or radirscling of Fa(W& the P o13nt shall npcat such fin& W to the pmjed dewdopa Sort to the City of Newport Beads The paleontologist shalt d km=appopriate actions, m 000paabo u with the pojed &vdope , winds emwe popes• exploratian adra salvage. E= vatedfndsshallbeoffacdtodwCitycfNewportBack or its desipee, onafirsfmfinalbasisThe applka trmyrddasaid Ends ifwrinm assurance is provided fiat 9"will be"edy p¢saved in Orange County, unles said Ends are ofspecial dgnifiaooe, or amustum in Otmge Courdy indicates a desire to study andrw display them at the vim , in wbkh rase Kara shall be dmstcdtothe City, arias@see. These adkm as well asfinal mitigation and dhpa lion of the re auce% shall be subjed to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prig to the final of the Vxft paw% the pateodoiogist shall arbmR a follow-uprp for approval by the City wbkh shall include the period of impedim, a atatogue and analysis of the fossils fourxl, and pesnarepraitayafihe Eaelt i3((s1.Y�'siFiai.�iti`(:r:r;cgrtt Jw:4[a!a75o7d:u7rRfs7:r9:.auO•rrb69 i✓:\:1 Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSIED MITIGATED_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all an permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified In this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Baker & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12,1999 to November 12,1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments re ardi g the adeguacv of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Demoment at the above address by November 12. 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. ?n