The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBLUFFS GROUNDWATER STUDYBLUFFS GROUNDWATER STUDY VOLUAtEl , 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / TCA EIR 14 i FORD ROAD1,EXTENSION AND I ALIGN41ENT ; State ClearinghbuSe No.. 91061040 'I 4e� Agency, ; ■ Transport4don' Corridor Agencies 345, Clinton Street Costa Mesa; California-92626 (714)557-3298 Contact: Macie Cleary -Milan 4 EIRTrepared, by: The Keith' Companies_ ' 2995 Red HzILAroenue ', I - It, Costa Mesa, California 92626 j (714)540-0840 filly 1992=' 1 1 98434PRF 11608-X' \ J 1ACh 1 i San Joaquin Hills Foothlll/Eastern Corridor Agency Corridor Agency Chairman: Chairman: _ John Cox Gene Wisner Newport Beach Yorba Linda TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES William Woollett, Jr, Executive Director Wally Kreutzen Deputy Director, Finance & Administration Greg Henk Deputy Director, Design & Construction ill July 15, 1992 Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ford Road Extension and Realignment Dear Interested Party; Enclosed for your information and records is the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ford Road Extension and Realignment certified by the San Joaquin Hills Board of Directors on June 11, 1992. The Final Environmental Impact Report includes the document with all the information from the Response -to -Comments incorporated, the technical appendices, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Facts and Findings, Staff Report and the final resolutions. If you have any questions regarding this Final Environmental Impact Report, please contact me at (714)557-3298. Sincerely, Macie Cleary -Milan Senior Environmental Analyst S PU kF�crr 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7141557-3298 FAX 7741557-9104 Members: Anaheim Costa Mesa Countyof Orange Donapolnt Irvine LakeForest LogunaHills Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo Orange Newport Beach Santa Ana San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Tustin Yorba Linda 0 RecycledPoper FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/TCA EIR 4 FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consists of two volumes o Volume I - Final EIR text (Appendices separate) o Volume H - Response to Comments, Staff Reports, Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations, Board Resolutions and Mitigation Monitoring Program 9843-IPR-11608-X SUMMARY PROJECT Implementation of the proposed project would realign Ford Road from the Newport Beach and Irvine city boundary to entirely within the City of Irvine. Ultimately, the extended and realigned Ford Road would link the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and MacArthur Boulevard. The project would include either one or two connectors for vehicular access between existing Ford Road and the realigned and extended Ford Road. The project also includes construction of cul-de-sacs at a new westerly terminus and existing easterly terminus of existing Ford Road. No widening of existing Ford Road is proposed. The proposed project is a mitigation measure for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to reduce future traffic and noise impacts to existing residential areas adjacent to Ford Road, and to retain local access to these residential area during SIHTC construction. The realigned roadway would serve as a detour for Newport Coast Drive traffic during construction of the SJHTC. This environmental impact report (SIR) analyzes two base project alignments (Alignments A and B) for the extended and realigned Ford Road and two sets of two connector roads (indirect (1) and direct (D) connectors). A total of six combinations of project alternative alignments are evaluated within Section 3.0 of this environmental document as follows: A(I), A(II), A(D), B(l), B(11) and B(D). The Il variations, utilize only the westerly indirect connector (11) in combination with either A or B (i.e. A(11) or B(11)). The project study area and alternative alignments are illustrated in Figures S-1 and S-2. Throughout this EIR, a detailed environmental data base for the area between alignments A and B and existing Ford Road is included, so that alignment variations within this portion of the study area may be readily assessed for environmental impact. Construction of the SJHTC will remove existing access to the Coyote Canyon Landfill via Coyote Canyon Road and Newport Coast Drive. As part of the proposed Ford Road project, a new Coyote Canyon Road access from the extended and realigned Ford Road to the landfill site would be provided. Two potential alignments are shown on Figure S-1. Although the landfill is permanently closed, the new access road to the landfill area will be used for maintenance of the closed landfill and may be used for access to future uses of the unincorporated landfill site. Typical cross sections are presented in Figure S-3. Typical cross sections for realigned Ford Road and connectors, utilizing alignment A or B with either direct or indirect connectors, indicate a right-of-way width of 116 feet. Proposed right-of-way consists of a median, two travel lanes and bike lane in each direction, one turn lane/curb and gutter in each direction and a sidewalk. 96434M-116MX 8.1 Alignment A Alignment A is approximately 6,100 linear feet from its intersection with MacArthur Boulevard to its intersection with a future SJHTC interchange. At its widest separation from existing homes along Ford Road it is 1,300 feet away. At its nearest point, it is 330 feet away. Alignment B Alignment B is approximately 5,950 feet in length. At its widest separation from existing homes along Ford Road, it is 900 feet away. At its nearest point it is 330 feet away. Connector Roads Direct connectors would be the northerly extensions of Newport Hills Drive West and San Miguel Drive between existing Ford Road and the proposed Ford Road. Alternatively, indirect connectors would extend north from existing Ford Road at a point approximately 1,600 feet west of the existing San Miguel/Ford Road intersection (at the greenbelt), and also from a location aligned with Hillside Drive. Typical cross sections for proposed Coyote Canyon Road indicate an overall right-of-way width of 60 feet. Two alternative alignments are under consideration -- Alignments C-3 and C-5. Other Alternatives It should be noted that these alternatives are in addition to the alignments A and B described above. These "alternatives" are included as a response to public comments from the December 13, 1990 Scoping Meeting. In addition, other alternatives were identified during the environmental process but are not feasible as discussed in Section 5.2 herein and were rejected from further consideration. In accordance with CEQA Section 15126(d), this EIR also includes consideration of the following alternatives, illustrated in Figure S-4, to the proposed project alignments. o Alternative 1 - "No Build" (Retain existing Ford Road with no extension or realignment); o Alternative 2 - "No Project" (No realignment; existing Ford Road extended to an approved interchange with the SJHTC consistent with the current Master Plan of Arterial Highways); 9843-IPR-11608-X S-2 9943-IPR-11606-X &3 ALT. A(D) / ALT. B(D) / ALTERNATIVE / ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT Q. �� ALIGNMENT •`�� t� 1 ALIGNMENT , �+ xa AUGNME a 4 Ao e. LT. A(l) / LT. B( I)/ Nw ALIGNMENT IP��,P ,� AUGNYENTE P� t� t EXISTING AUGNMENT EXISTING ALIGNMENT 9 c Y � LT. A(11) ALT. B(11)ALTERNATIV ALTERNATIVE nw ALIGNMENT P�.�,P ,y ALIGNMENT t� P� . * EXISTING 4 ALIGNMENT t`+ EXISTIAUG MNENT � t Y a £ O FUTURE INTERCHANGE --• DIRECT CONNECTION — INDIRECT CONNECTION SUUHGt: AU51 IN+L)U51 ASSUU., INU. NOT TO SCALE figure: S-2 Alignment/Connector Alternatives FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES ■ 30' ' 20' 20• 8' 12' 12' 8- ' r I I , PROPOSED COYOTE CANYON ROAD i O/W C/L q/yy 58, 58, 1 40' 40' I I 18' 8' 12' 13' 7' 7' 1 13' 1 12' 1 8' 18' i TYPICAL, CROSS SECTION FOR FORD ROAD 1 AND PROPOSED CONNECTOR ROADS 1 NOTE PRECISE CROSS SECTIONS, SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPNG TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY OF IRVNIE WITH DETALED PLANS. Typical Cross Sections +gm: S.3 FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE RE" COWANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 3 AFr NO PROJECT PRO ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 SOURCE: AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOC., INC. NOT TO SCALE figure: S-4 Alternatives to Proposed Project FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES o Alternative 3 - (Realigned Ford Road from MacArthur Boulevard midway between existing Ford Road and Bison Avenue, to an approved interchange with SJHTC; includes indirect connectors.) o Alternative 4 - (Realigned Ford Road extending from Bison Avenue midway between MacArthur Boulevard and the SJHTC, southeasterly to an approved interchange with the SJHTC; includes indirect connectors.) PROJECT LIMITS The extension and realignment of Ford Road is proposed through largely undeveloped land north and east of the existing intersection of Ford Road with MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Irvine. Existing structures within the project study area include the Lange Financial Plaza (formerly Urbanus Square) and a Pacific Bea office building. Currently, the undeveloped portion of the study area is used mainly for cattle grazing. The project limits are as follows: Alignment A forms the northern boundary; the SJHTC and proposed Coyote Canyon Road landfill access form the eastern boundary; existing Ford Road forms the southern boundary; and MacArthur Boulevard forms the western project boundary. This entire area was analyzed for impacts of alignment alternatives. The project study area consists of the area between and including proposed Alignment A and existing Ford Road located east of MacArthur Boulevard. (Figure S-1). NEED FOR PROJECT Realignment of Ford Road is a mitigation measure proposed to reduce traffic and noise impacts expected from implementation of the SJHTC, on established residential areas in Newport Beach. The planned extension of Ford Road to the SJHTC is provided for in both the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Elements, and the County of (range Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH),I EXISTING ROAD CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES AND FUTURE CONDITIONS Ford Road currently carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive. Based on existing traffic patterns, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) study results indicate current traffic congestion at MacArthur Boulevard/Bonita Canyon Road in the AM and PM peak hours. Capacity deficiencies also occur in the AM peak hour at MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue. (Table 3.8-1). With an extension of Ford Road to the SJHTC according to the current MPAH, daily traffic volumes on Ford Road are expected to increase by approximately 13,000 vehicles per day (VPD) from 12,000 VPD in 1990 to approximately 25,000 VPD in 2010. 1. Fain MWELS 1. for the San Joaquin Hills Tnnywi4tlon Condor Agency, Canty of orange. 96434PR-116W.X 8-9 I I Traffic congestion is anticipated on existing Ford Road under future conditions. Without a realignment and extension of Ford Road (i.e. "No Build"), future daily traffic volumes on Ford Road east of Macarthur Boulevard would increase to 29,000 vehicles per day (VPD) due to the diminished access to the SJHTC under this alternative. Other increases up to 16,000 VPD, relative to alternatives without an extension of Ford Road, would occur on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road north of Ford Road, on Bison Avenue, and on Newport Coast Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road. The proposed extension and realignment of Ford Road will reduce traffic congestion in these areas. A discussion of existing deficiencies, and future traffic conditions with and without a Ford Road realignment and extension is provided in Section 3.8, Traffic and Circulation. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. Implement the circulation elements of the General Plans for the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, as well as the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (NIPAH). 2. Provide a temporary detour for Newport Coast Drive traffic during construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 3. Buffer existing residential areas adjacent to existing Ford Road and San Miguel Drive from regional through traffic and transportation -related impacts. 4. Provide a direct route between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and MacArthur Boulevard 5. Provide continued access to the Coyote Canyon landfill site via Coyote Canyon Road. 6. Provide local vehicular access between the realigned Ford Road and neighborhoods south of existing Ford Road. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A program of public participation and involvement in regional and local circulation decisions affecting the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine was initiated in past phases of SJHTC studies. The public involvement process has continued from 1982 through the 1988 update to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and recent amendments to City of Irvine General Plan, up to the present. Comments on the Ford Road Realignment and Extension project were received from interested parties at a public scoping meeting, which was held on December 13, 1990. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR was distributed on June 3, 1991. Issues identified at the scoping meeting and in response to the widely distributed NOP have been considered in preparing this EIR, and are summarized in Section 9.0 which follows. 9843-JPR-11608-X S-8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSYASSUES TO BE RESOLVED Following is a summary of the major areas of controversy and potential environmental impacts as expressed through the public participation programs discussed above.# o Traffic/Safety o Visual/Light and Glare Effects of the Project on Residential, Open Space and Recreation Areas o Noise Effects of the Project on Residential and Open Space Areas; o Air Quality Impacts from Automotive Sources o Construction (Paleontological, Prehistoric, Historic) Impacts o Natural Resources Degradation (Flora, Fauna and Water Resources) o Park and Ride Facilities o Cultural Resources Impacts o Land Use Compatibility o Increased Use of Non -Renewable or Slowly Renewable Resources SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BOACTS Significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project and alternatives have been identified during the environmental analysis for this EIR. Following is a summary of impacts, recommended mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation for the proposed Ford Road project. This summary is presented in matrix format in Table S-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and level of significance after mitigation, in accordance with CEQA Section 15123. A detailed analysis of project effects, mitigation, and level of significance after mitigation is provided in Section 3.0 of this EIR and a detailed alternatives analysis is provided in Section 5.0. The reader should also consult Section 6.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures fora complete listing. 9943-M-11604A 3.9 M TABLE S-1 COMPARISON OF BUILD ALTERNATIVES BUILD Environmental ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues Alienment A Alinment B MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION HYDROLOGY Increased runoff to Increased runoff to o Final design Hydraulic o Insignificant Bonita Creek Bonita Creek analysis of Bonita Creek and outlets to creek. Erosion of temporarily Erosion of temporarily o Slope protection at drainage o Insignificant exposed ground surfaces exposed ground structure inlets and outlets. during construction surfaces during construction o Temporary mulching, seeding, landscaping and other stabilization during and after construction. Temporarily elevated Temporarily elevated o Prepare and implement o Insignificant levels of pollutants in levels of pollutants in Runoff Management Plan downstream receiving downstream receiving (RMP) to route and detain Z3-3 waters from roadway waters from roadway runoff, and reduce pollutant runoff runoff. levels in downstream drainages. Potential roadway Potential roadway o Bridges to span wetlands at o Insignificant encroachment within encroachment within westerly and easterly stream wetlands (see Biology) wetlands (see Biology) channels. BIOLOGY Vegetation/habitat loss Vegetation/habitat loss o Project should be enrolled o Insignificant Z3-3 maximized with A minimized with B in the Natural Communities alignment alternatives. alignment alternatives Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. (In lieu of NCCP 9843-JPR-11608-Coto ns S-10 Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues Alianment A Alienment B MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION enrollment, coastal sage scrub mitigation measures below I Z3-3 shall apply). o Loss of 2.0 acres o Loss of 0.5 acre o Assure no net loss of o Insignificant BIOLOGY coastal sage scrub coastal sage scrub coastal sage scrub (CSS) (Continued) through revegetation of adjacent or contiguous areas. "43-OR-1160e-Catuns o Measures such as construction phase fencing and css spraying, buffering and transitional plantings, and post construction monitoring to protect remaining coastal sage scrub onsite. o Loss of 30.9 to 36.2 o Loss of 28.7 to 31.5 o Confine earthmoving o Insignificant acres non-native acres non-native equipment to narrow grassland grassland. construction corridor; waste deposition sites to avoid native vegetation outside construction limits. o Loss of 0.7 to 1.0 acre o Loss of 0.5 to 0.8 o Include bridges at westerly o Insignificant riparian habitat acres riparian habitat. and easterly tributaries to Bonita Creek to minimize riparian habitat loss. S-11 o Preparation of Wetlands Mitigation Plan; consultation with CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of Fish and M M M M M M M M M Environmental Issues BIOLOGY (Continued) BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Alignment A Alignment B Sensitive Plantsl iildlife: MITIGATION MEASURES Game Code, and consultation with ACOE pursuant to Section 404 of Clean Water Act to assure no net loss of riparian habitat; and obtain required permits (1601/404) and RWQCB 401 Certification. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Z3--y Loss or displacement of Loss or displacement of o Revegetation with native o Insignificant wildlife, fragmentation wildlife, fragmentation plants of all graded and cut - of habitat, barrier to of habitat, barrier to and -fill areas where native local wildlife movement local w i l d l i f e vegetation was removed and movement where roadway -related improvements not planned. o Night lighting of roadway (per City of Irvine standards) to be baffled (or provided with internal silvering) so as to not disrupt nocturnal wildlife activity. Loss or disturbances to Loss or disturbances to sensitive plants and sensitive plants and wildlife as follows: wildlife as follows: 9843-JPR-11608-Cotu ns S-12 Environmental Issues BIOLOGY (Continued) 9543-01-11609-Cotmims BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Alignment A Alignment B MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION o Loss of 100 to 300 o No impacts to o Implement salvage and o Insignificant I 23^Jt many -stemmed dudleya many -stemmed dudleya reestablishment program for plants plants many -stemmed dudleya. o Loss of habitat o Loss of habitat occupied by 2 pairs of occupied by I pair of California gnatcatcher California gnatcatcher o Loss of cactus wren o Loss of cactus wren habitat habitat o Possible least Bell's vireo nest abandonment from construction noise and activities (no direct habitat loss); cumulative traffic noise disturbances (Ford Road o Possible least Bell's vireo nest abandonment from construction noise and activities (no direct habitat loss); cumulative traffic noise 5-13 o Assure no net loss of coastal sage scrub (CSS); implement coastal sage scrub preservation and revegetation program; avoid construction during gnatcatcher nesting and dispersal periods; survey revegetated areas to assure gnatcatcher colonization o Project should be enrolled in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program (Habitat Conservation Plan and Section 10a permit if subsequently listed as federally threatened or endangered) o Avoid construction during breeding season in the Bonita Reservoir area; utilize transition plantings an manufactured slopes between roadway and adjacent willow woodland at Bonita Reservoir, SJHTC noise barriers to assure o Significant o Insignificant o Insignificant M r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues Alignment A Alignment B MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION plus SJHTC) to least disturbances (Ford noise levels less than 60 Leq at Bell's Vireo at Bonita Road plus SJHTC) to least Bell's vireo nesting areas Reservoir least Bell's Vireo at Bonita Reservoir. BIOLOGY (continued) o Loss of 35.0 acres of suitable habitat for San Diego horned lizard (not observed onsite) o Loss of suitable habitat for orange - throated whiptail, arroyo toad, western spadefoot, toad, southwestern pond turtle (none observed onsite) o Loss of potential foraging habitat for black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk (not observed onsite) o Indirect degradation of habitat and disturbance to wildlife adjacent roads from increased human intrusion, pets, debris and traffic noise. o Loss of 32.0 acres of suitable habitat for San Diego horned lizard (not observed onsite) o Coastal sage scrub o Insignificant preservation and revegetation program o Loss of suitable o None required habitat for orange - throated whiptail, arroyo toad, western spadefoot toad, southwestern pond turtle (none observed onsite) o Loss of potential foraging habitat for black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk (not observed onsite) o Indirect degradation of habitat and disturbances to wildlife adjacent roads from increased human intrusion, pets, debris and traffic noise. 9843-JPR- t 1608-Column S- l4 o None required o Insignificant o Insignificant o Signage and fencing at o Insignificant roadway interface with adjacent natural open space to discourage trespass. Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues Alignment A Alignment B MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Continued) AESTHETIC/ VISUAL o Maximizes earthwork o Minimizes earthwork o Adherence to final design o Insignificant requirements. requirments. geotechnical requirements. o Greater fill and borrow impact with (D) connectors. o Difficult excavation with (D) connectors (including pre -splitting). o Encounters some slope instability; expansive soils; oversize materials; potential seismically induced ground shaking; liquefaction and settlement (at bridge locations). o No significant impact (most of aligment screened from view of existing homes). o Greater fill and borrow impact with (D) connectors. o Difficult excavation with (D) connectors (including pre - splitting). o Encounters some slope instability; expansive soils, oversize materials; potential seismically induced ground shaking; liquefaction and settlement (at bridge locations). o No significant impact (most of alignment screened from view of existing homes). o Adherence to final design o Insignificant geotechnical requirements o Additional drilling and/or o Insignificant seismic profiling with limitations on pre -splitting charge size. o Removal, preconsolidation o Insignificant or pretreatment of unsuitable material; fill slope maximums at 2.1; slide areas stablized or removed; bridges to conform with Caltrans seismic design standards. o Contouring and transitional o Insignificant treatments at manufactured slope/natural ground interface. 9543-JPR-116011-Cotuns 5-15 M M M M M M M M M MF MF M r M M M= M M M M M M M M Environmental Issues LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Alignment A Alignment B Consistent with City Consistent with City General Plan, but- General Plans, but - o Divides coherent medium -high density planning area (which limits planning options). o Create small, irregular parcels adjacent existing Ford Road (which limits planning options). 9843-JPR-11608-Colums S-1f LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION o Lower road profile and earthen berm between the 28_Z easterly connector and bridge. o Use of trees, revegetation, landscape materials and techniques. o Utilize bridges at two major drainage crossings. o The City of Irvine will review future development applications for land uses adjacent Ford Road realignment and extension alternatives. Mitigation measures in the form of standard conditions of approval will be applied to such developments to assure that the use -related impacts of noise, air quality, views, light and glare and aesthetics are reduced to insignificant levels. o Insignificant Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alignment A Alignment B o Require partial o Requires partial business displacement business displacement (Lange Financial Plaza). (Lange Financial Plaza). LIGHT AND GLARE RECREATION/ OPEN SPACE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 9e43-JPR-11605•Coluwa o No significant impact o No significant impact to existing or committed open space. o Compatible with County and City bikeways plans. o Coyote Canyon Road replacement assures access to future recreational area (beneficial impact). o Consistent with Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and City of Irvine and Newport Beach Circulation Elements. MITIGATION MEASURES o The project shall assure adequate compensation for property acquired, removed and/or relocated. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION o Insignificant o No significant o Street lights per City of o Insignificant impact. Irvine standards. o No significant impact to existing or committed open space. o Landscape buffers at roadway interface with adjacent areas. o No mitigation required. o Compatible with o No mitigation required County and City bikeways plans. o Coyote Canyon Road replacement assures access to future recreational area (beneficial impact). o Consistent with Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and City of Irvine and Newport Beach Circulation Elements. S-17 o Insignificant o Insignificant o No mitigation measures o Insignificant required. M M Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alienment A Alienment B TRAFFIC AND o Future traffic volumes o Future traffic CIRCULATION similiar to Alignment B volumes on Ford Road (Continued) (i.e. no significant east of MacArthur difference with 'Base Boulevard at 25,000 Case' -- see Figures 5-I VPD (vehicles per day) through 5-4 for -- 4,000 less than 'No comparisons of future Build' Alternative (see volumes). Figure 5-1 through 5-4 for comparisons of future volumes). o Future traffic volumes o 62,000 VPD on similiar to Alignment B. MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road (16,000 less than 'No Built' Alternative). o Future trafic volumes o 31,000 VPD on Bison similar to Alignment B. R o a d e a s t o f MacArthur Boulevard (10,000 less than 'No Build' Alternative). o Future traffic volumes similar to Alignment B. o 66,000 VPD on Jamboree Road north of Ford Road (5,000 less than 'No Build' Alternative). 9643-JPR-11606-Column 5-18 MITIGATION MEASURES o No mitigation measures required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION o Insignificant o No mitigation measures o Insignificant required. o No mitigation measures o Insignificant required. o No mitigation measures o Insignificant required. Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alignment A Alignment B o Future traffic volumes o 55,000 VPD on similar to Alignment B. Newport Coast Drive south of SJHTC to San Joaquin Hills Road (4,000 less than 'No Build' Alternative). NOISE 9643-0*-11606-0*tu o Intersection deficiency at Ford Road and Jamboree Road (see Tables 5-1, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5 for intersection comparisons of alternatives.) o Construction noise (audible to residences as close as 270 feet from alignment). o Reduces future, cumulative CNEL at 9 of 10 existing residential measurement locations near Ford Road (Harbor View Homes, Harbor View Knoll, Seawind) in comparison with 'No Project' Alternative. o Intersection deficiency at Ford Road and Jamboree Road (see Tables 5-1, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5 for intersection comparisons of alternatives.) o Construction noise (audible to residences as cios as 270 feet from alignment). o Reduces future, cumulative CNEL at 9 of 10 existing residential measurement locations near Ford Road (Harbor View Homes, Harbor View Knoll, Seawind) in comparison with 'No Project' Alternative. 5-19 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION o No mitigation measures o Insignificant required. o No mitigation measures o Insignificant required (as A and B similar or superior to 'No Build' and 'No Project'). o Compliance with City of o Insignificant Newport Beach and City of Irvine Noise Ordinances. o Sound walls along San o Insignificant Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) to reduce future cumulative impacts; final design studies to determine SJHTC barrier heights. M M M M M M Environmental Issues AIR QUALITY BUILD ALTERNATIVE - IMPACTS Alienment A Alienment B o No significant differences (i.e. greater thatn 3 CNEL) with B Alignment Alternative (minor differences will be eliminated by 'barrier' efect of future -intervening development). (See Figures 3.10-2, 3.10-4, 3.10-5 and Table 3.10-4 for comparison of alternatives). Short Term: Release of particulate emissions during grading (approx. 25 tons over 2 months) o Equipment emissions during construction of 90.7 Ibs/day of CO, 238.8 Ibs./day of NO2 18.3 Ibs./day of hydrocarbons, 28.4 lbs. of S02, and 21.5 lbs. of particulates. o No significant differences (i.e. greater than 3 CNEL) with A Alignment Alternative (minor differences will be eliminated by 'barrier' effect of future intervening development). (See Figures 3.10-2, 3.10-4, 3.10-5 and Table 3.10- 4 for comparison of alternatives). Short Term: Release of particulate emissions during grading (appox. 25 tons over 2 months) o Equipment emissions during construction of 90.7 lbs./day of CO, 238.8 lbs./day of NO2, 18.3 lbs./day of hydrocarbons, 28.4 lbs. of S02, and 21.5 tbs. of particulates. 9843-JPR-11608-Cotums S-20 MITIGATION MEASURE o No mitigation required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION o Insignificant o Project site watering, use of o Insignificant soil binders, and seeding/watering to establish ground cover o Use of low -sulphur proper maintenance tuning, trucks washed they leave site. fuel, o Insignificant and off as Environmental Issues AIR QUALITY (Continued) CULTURAL SCIENTIFIC 9643-01t-i1606-Cetuns BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Alignment A Alienment B Long Term: Long Term: Future 1-hour carbon Future I -hour carbon monoxide (CO) monoxide (CO) concentrations range concentration range from 8.7 ppm to 9.8 from 8.9 ppm to 10.1 ppm at the 6 receptor ppm at the 6 receptor locations nearest the project (See Figure 3.9-1 and Table 3.9-4), these levels are within State and Federal standards. Future 8-hour CO concentrations range from 3.9 ppm to 4.7 ppm at the 6 receptor locations nearest the project (See Figure 3.9-1 and Table 3.9-5); these levels are within state and federal standards. Consistent with AQMP; no significant regional air quality impact. Paleontology: Excavations will impact several formations with moderate to high locations nearest the project (See Figure 3.9- 1 and Table 3.9-4); these levels are within State and Federal Standards. MITIGATION MEASURES o No mitigation required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION o Insignificant Future 8-hour CO o No mitigation required. o Insignificant concentrations range from 4.0 ppm to 4.9 ppm at the 6 receptor locations nearest the project (See Figure 3.9- 1 and Table 3.9-5); these levels are within State and Federal standards. Consistent with AQMP; no significant regional air quality impact Paleontology: Excavations will impact several formations with moderate to high 5-21 o Accommodate public transit o Insignificant in roadway design; implement bikeways plans. o Paleontologic field inspectors o Insignificant with authority to halt or redirect grading; salvage/removal of unearthed specimens and donation to M M Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alienment A Alienment B sensitivity/highest sensitivity (highest sensitivity near sensitivity near MacArthur Blvd. and MacArthur Blvd. and near SJHTC) near SJHTC) Prehistoric Cultural Resources: Impacts 4 [Alternative A (I1)] to 6 [Alternative A (D)] archaeological sites (See Table 3.11-2) Alternative A (II) avoids (and Alternative A (I) minimizes) direct impacts to the two most sensitive, complex sites. Historic Resources: o Impacts south wing addition of Lange Financial Plaza (Former Buffalo Ranch) MITIGATION MEASURES Natural History Foundation of Orange County, with report of findings. Prehistoric Cultural o Site testing and data Resources: recovery prior to grading; Impacts 5 [Alternative flagging of sites to be B (I)] to 7 [Alternative preserved B (D)] archaeological sites (See Table 3.11-2) Alternatives B(I) and B(II) impact one of the two most sensitive, complex sites. Historic Resources: o Impacts south wing addition of Lange Financial Plaza (Former Buffalo Ranch) 9843-JPR-11608-Columns S-22 o Recordation of entire building complex prior to roadway construction (photo documentation and/or reproduction of plans and drawings); salvage and preservation of select building items o Relocation if possible of impacted buildings to compatible location onsite (or offsite) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION o Insignificant o Significant Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alignment A Alignment B PUBLIC Police: Police: SERVICES o Short-term o Short-term AND UTILITIES construction phase site construction phase site security demands on security demands on City police services City police services o Removes direct police access to Harbor View and Harbor Knoll via MacArthur Blvd. and existing Ford Road (i.e. requires indirect access via realigned Ford Road or routing up San Miguel Road) o A (12) left turn only at San Miguel/Ford Road intersection increases response time to Harbor Knoll o Long-term increased manpower and equipment for City of Irvine police due to increased activity, traffic safety and law enforcement requirements 9543-M-11600-Cottma o Remo-ves direct police access to Harbor View and Harbor Knoll via MacArthur Blvd. and existing Ford Road (i.e. requires indirect access via realigned Ford Road or routing up San Miguel Road) o B (I2) left turn only at San Miguel/Ford Road intersection increases response time to Harbor Knoll o Long term increased manpower and equipment for City of Irvine police due to increased activity, traffic safety and law enforcement requirements 5-23 MITIGATION MEASURES o No mitigation required LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION o Insignificant o Road design, lighting and o Insignificant landscaping to comply with City ordinances related to safety. o Retain emergency vehicle o Insignificant only access on vacated portion of existing Ford Road through gates (under I2 alternatives only), or use of Newport Hills Shopping Center access. o No mitigation required o Insignificant Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alienment A Alienment B PUBLIC Fire: Fire. SERVICES o Short-term o Short-term AND UTILITIES construction phase construction phase (Continued) increased fire risk and increased fire risk and suppression requirement. suppression requirement o Increased response times from City of Newport Beach to Harbor View and Harbor Knoll (due to realigned, more indirect access via Ford Road, or use of San Miguel Road) Water: o Conflict with 18" IRWD main in eastern portion of site; no other conflicts with water lines (adequate clearance maintained by roadway design, placement of fill) Gas: o No conflicts with gas lines o Increased response times from City of Newport Beach to Harbor View and Harbor Knoll (due to realigned more indirect access via Ford Road, or use of San Miguel Road) Water - Conflict with 18" IRWD main in eastern portion of site; no other conflicts with waterlines (adequate clearance maintained by roadway design, placement of fill) Gas: o No conflicts with gas lines. 9843-OR-11608-Colo ns 5-24 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION o Compliance with County and o Insignificant City Fire Department standards for roadway design, construction, and water availability. o Compliance with County and o Insignificant City Fire Department standards; retain emergency access for A (I2) and B (I2) alternatives (See Police above) o Lower IRWD line 6 to 8 o Insignificant feet; all other lines protected in place. o No mitigation required. o Insignificant Environmental BUILD ALTERNATIVES - IMPACTS Issues Alignment A Alignment B PUBLIC Electricity: Electricity. SERVICES o Conflict with power o Conflict with power AND UTILITIES pole(s) east of Lange pole(s) east of Lange (Continued) Financial Plaza Financial Plaza Telephone: o Conflicts with underground telephone ducts and overhead poles north of Pac Bell building 9643-M-11609-co Marx Telephone: o Conflicts with underground telephone ducks and overhead poles north of Pac Bell building 5-25 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION o Field verification of power o Insignificant pole conflicts and relocation per SCE. o Field locate conduits and o Insignificant protect in place; reinforcement encasement with fill embankments greater than 12 feet deep. o Pole field verification and relocation per Pac Bell; maintained required vertical clearances. II I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY......................................................................................S-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Significance of Impacts After Mitigation, Alternatives, Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Purpose........................................................................1-1 1.2 Environmental Procedures.............................................................1-1 1.3 Effects Found Not To Be Significant................................................1-2 1.4 Previous Environmental Documentation............................................1-2 1.5 Intended Use of This EIR.............................................................1-3 1.6 Related Projects - SJHTC EIR........................................................1-6 1.7 Implementation of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Monitoring Program............................................1-8 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location..................................................................................2-1 2.2 Background and History ...............................................................2-1 2.3 General Description and Components of the Project..............................2-1 2.4 Objectives of the Project...............................................................2-8 2.5 Project Phasing..........................................................................2-8 3.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE 3.1 Hydrology...............................................................................3-1 3.2 Biological Resources..................................................................3-14 3.3 Topography/Geology and Soils .....................................................3-48 3.4 Aesthetic Resources...................................................................3-60 3.5 Land Use/Relevant Planning........................................................3-79 3.6 Light and Glare........................................................................3-89 3.7 Recreation/Open Space ...............................................................3-92 3.8 Traffic and Circulation...............................................................3-97 3.9 Air Quality............................................................................3-120 3.10 Noise..................................................................................3-131 3.11 Cultural Scientific Resources......................................................3-153 3.12 Public Services and Utilities.......................................................3-171 3.13 Construction Activities..............................................................3-179 9843-JPR-11608-X 1 Il 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Growth Inducement..................................................................4.4-1 4.2 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................4-2 4.3 The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .... ................................ ...4-3 4.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented........................................4-4 ALTERNATIVES 5ACirculation System Alternatives......................................................5-1 5.2 Other Alternatives Considered......................................................5-14 5.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative..............................................5-17 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES..........................................6-1 INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...........................7-1 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS ............................ .................................... 8-1 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................9-1 10.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS.............................................................. ...... 10-1 APPENDICES (Bound Separately) A. Notice of Preparation and Correspondence B. Hydrology/Hydraulics Investigation C. Biological Resources Assessment and Impact Analysis Extension D. Ford Road Extension and Realignment Traffic Analysis E. Air Quality Analysis for the Proposed Extension and Realignment of Ford Road F. Noise Analysis for the Extension and Realignment of Ford Road G. Cultural Scientific Resource Investigation H. Geological Report for the Extension and Realignment of Ford Road 9643-JPR-11608-% LIST OF FIGURES Number M, egg S-1 Alignment Map..................................................................S-3 S-2 Alignment/Connector Alternatives............................................S-4 S-3 Typical Cross Section..........................................................S-5 S-4 Other Alternatives to Proposed Project......................................S-6 2.1-1 Regional Location...............................................................2-2 2.1-2 Local Vicinity ....................................................................2-3 2.3-1 Alignment Map..................................................................2-6 2.3-2 Typical Cross Sections.........................................................2-7 3.1-1 Watersheds, Watercourses and Floodplains...................................................3-2 3.1-2 Drainage.........................................................................................................3-3 3.2-1 Vegetation and Sensitive Species.............................................3-17 3.3-1 Topography......................................................................3-50 3.3-2 Geotechnical Map...............................................................3-51 3.3-3 Earthwork (Cut & Fill).........................................................3-55 3.4-1 Visual Resources................................................................3-62 3.4-2 Site Photograph Index..........................................................3-65 3.4-3 to 3.4-7 Site Photographs.................................................................3-66 3.4-8 to 3.4-10 Sections...........................................................................3-73 3.4.11 Earth Berm ............................ ......................................................................... 3-78 9843-JPR-11608-X LIST OF FIGURES (continued) 3.5-1 Existing Land Uses ................. .................. I ........... .............. 3-81 3.5-2 Irvine/Newport Beach General Plan Land Uses............................3-83 3.5-3 Lange Financial Plaza .................................................. ........ 3-86 3.7-1 Trails..............................................................................3.94 3.8-1 NBTAM Jurisdictions..........................................................3-101 3.8-2 Intersection Location Map.....................................................3-102 3.8-3 1990 ADT Volumes............................................................3-104 3.8-4 Future 2010 ADT Volumes Without Project................................3-107 3.8-5 Future 2010 ADT Volumes With Project....................................3-112 3.8-6 Circulation Variations of Alternative B(I)...................................3-117 3.9-1 Air Quality Receptor Locations...............................................3.127 3.10-1 Typical Outdoor Noise Levels.................................................3-134 3.10-2 Noise Measurement Locations................................................3-135 3.10-3 Construction Noise Levels at 50 feet.........................................3-140 3.10-4 Existing and Future Noise Levels.............................................3-144 3.10 5 A and B Alignments 65 CNEL Contour ...... .............. ................. 3-146 3.11-1 Lange Financial Plaza..........................................................3-158 3.12-1 Utilities...........................................................................3-175 5-1 Circulation System Alternatives...............................................5-2 5-2 2010 ADT Volumes Alternative1 (No Build) .................................................. ..... 5-3 5-3 2010 ADT Volumes Alternative 2 (No Project).....................................................5-4 9843-JPR•116W-X 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 9843-JPR-11608-% LIST OF FIGURES (continued) 2010 ADT Volumes 2 L h I LIST OF TABLES Number Ift r= S-1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance after Mitigation.............................S-10 2.34 Characteristics of Alignment Alternatives..............................2-5 3.1-1 Proposed Drainage Facilities.............................................3-9 3.2-1 Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Study or Within the Vicinity of the Project Study Area ..................... .................................... 3-25 3.2-2 Potential Impacts on Vegetation Communities .........................3 29 3.3-1 Earthwork Quantities......................................................3.53 3.3.2 Geotechnical Comparison of Alternatives..............................3-58 3.7-1 Open Space Conversion by Alternative.................................3-95 3.8-1 Existing ICU Summary ......................................... ........... 3-105 3.8-2 Existing and Future (2010) ICUSummary (Without Project)........................................3-108 3.8-3 2010 ICU Summary Proposed Ford Road (A or B)............................................3-113 3.8-4 ICU Comparison (Alignment A/Alignment B)..............................................3-116 3.8-5 ICU Summary (Alternative BD).........................................3-118 3.9-1 Air Quality Levels Measured at the El Toro Ambient Air Monitoring Station.........................................3-123 9843-JPK-11608-x AI 1 AI 1 J LIST OF TABLES m er Title Page 3.9-2 Federal and State Carbon Monoxide Standards ........................3-125 3.9-3 Existing Modeled CO Concentrations in the Ford Road Project Vicinity...............................................3-126 3.9-4 1-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Projections for Year 2010 Conditions...................................3-129 3.9-5 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide, Concentrations Projections for Year 2010 Conditions...................................3-129 3.10-1 Existing CNEL Noise Levels.............................................3-138 3.10-2 Future Cumulative CNEL Noise Levels................................3-141 3.10-3 Distance to Noise Contours from Roadway Centerline For Future Conditions........................................3-145 3.10-4 Differences Over Existing Conditions in Noise Levels for Future Conditions by Siteand Alternative........................................................3-148 3.11-1 Recorded Archaeological Sites...........................................3-156 3.11-2 Summary of Impacts to Prehistoric Resources .........................3-159 5.1-1 2010 ICU Summary (Alternatives)......................................5-7 9843-JPR-11608-X I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL PURPOSE The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to review existing conditions, evaluate alternatives, analyze potential environmental impacts, and define feasible mitigation measures for the extension and realignment of Ford Road, In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code 15000 et seq.), as amended, this EIR assesses individual and cumulative impacts related to the project. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR analyzes the environmental effects of various project alternatives to the degree of specificity appropriate for construction of a realigned and extended Ford Road. CEQA requires the preparation of an objective, full disclosure document to inform agency decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect environmental impacts of the proposed project, and to provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential environmental effects of the proposed project to a level of insignificance. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be assessed to determine the "...incremental environmental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects: (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355) CEQA also requires that the EIR identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (d) (2). Impacts are not always mitigatable to a level of insignificance, and in those cases are considered unavoidable adverse impacts. The Summary section of this EIR identifies levels of significance attributed to impacts of the proposed Ford Road realignment and extension after the application of mitigation measures. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance (i.e., unavoidable adverse impacts), the Lead Agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations," per Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act, based on the Final EIR. 9943-IM-1160! X 1-1 11 1 1 1.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT A full range of potential environmental effects was originally considered in the June 3, 1991 Environmental Analysis/Initial Study contained in Appendix A of this EIR. Effects found not to be significant includes the following categories. o Modification of any unique geological/physical features. o Exposure to geologic hazards. o Creation of objectionable odors. o Alternatives or exposure to flood waters. o Alterations to ground waters. o Reduction in public water supplies. o Introduction of new species of plants or animals. o Reduction in acreage of agricultural crop. o Effects upon any unique ethnic cultural values. o Increased use of any natural resources. o Substantial use of fuel or energy. o Significant inducement to urban growth. o Conversion or impairment of prime agricultural land. o Substantial demand for rail or air traffic. o Alterations to population distribution, density or growth rate. o Displace large numbers of people. o Create demand for additional housing. o Create public health hazards. o Exposure to high fire hazards. o Exposure to aircraft crash hazards. o Risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances. o Result of deficiencies in various public services and utilities. Effects checked "yes" or "maybe" in the Environmental Analysis/Initial Study are evaluated throughout Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this EIR. 1.4 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) prepared TCA EIWEIS 1 for the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) to evaluate the environmental impacts of a 17.5 to 19.4-mile toll facility, including general purpose lanes and ramps, HOV lanes and ramps and interchange with I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) and off -ramps between the Cities of San Juan Capistrano and Newport Beach. A portion of the EIR study area established for the proposed extension and realignment of Ford Road is also included in the SJHTC study area. In addition, a Draft EIR has been prepared for widening MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach which includes a portion of the Ford Road study area. In conformance with CEQA Sections 15150 (c and d), the above referenced documents are incorporated by reference into this EIR, and portions of these documents are summarized and referenced in the environmental analysis which follows. 9843-JPR 11608-X 1-2 1 The TCA EWEIS1 for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is available to the public at: Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 The EIR for MacArthur Boulevard Improvements is available to the public at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 1.5 INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR This EIR will be used as an informational document to evaluate various alternatives associated with the realignment and extension of Ford Road between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The EIR will inform the TCA and other responsible agencies and interested parties of significant environmental impacts of the project; identify measures to mitigate significant impacts; and analyze project alternatives which may be capable of reducing significant impacts associated with the proposed project. The EIR analyzes project consistency with relevant local and regional plans and suggests measures to mitigate potential significant cumulative impacts of the project and related projects. A list of agencies which may rely on information in the EIR for permits and approvals is provided below: PERMITS AND APPROVALS IF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE IS CHOSEN AGENCY ROLE Or AGENCY TYPE OF DECISION San Joaquin Hills Lead agency Project approval, Transportation corridor construction management Agency and Phase Plan, Traffic Management Plan. City of Irvine Responsible Agency 9943-IM-116N.X 1-3 Process amendments to the Circulation Element reflecting the ultimate alignment of Ford Road, and ultimate 1 City of Newport Beach County of orange Responsible Agency Responsible Agency alignments and classification(s) of direct/indirect connectors, 65402 General Plan consistency determination, grading and building permits, construction management and Phasing Plan, and traffic management plan. Process amendments to Circulation Element reflecting the ultimate alignment of Ford Road, and ultimate alignments and classification(s) of direct/indirect connectors, Traffic Management Plan. Modify Master Plan of Arterial Highways to reflect Ford Road realignment and associated connectors, Traffic Management Plan. U.S. Army Corps of Responsible Agency Potential Clean Water Engineers Act Section 404 permit for wetlands dredge/fill. California Department of Responsible Agency Potential Section Fish and Game 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Caltrans Responsible Agency 9843dPR-11608-X 1-4 Encroachment permit to allow realigned Ford Road connection to an existing state highway (MacArthur Boulevard). California Regional hater Responsible ?agency Quality Control Board - Santa Ma Region 9943-M 11604-X 1-5 Water discharge permit; stormwater Discharge General Permit (construction activity compliance); 401 certification. I II 1.6 RELATED PROJECTS San Joaquin Bills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) The proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor project involves constructing the SR- 73 Tollway and interchanges from the I-5 Freeway in the City of San Juan Capistrano to its existing terminus road near Jamboree Road. Portions of the proposed project are located within the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills (newly incorporated), Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano and unincorporated areas of Orange County, California. In addition, ramp improvements on the existing SR-73 will be constructed between Birch Street and Jamboree Road as part of the project. Two build alternatives were evaluated in the EIR/EIS to construct a toll facility. The build alternative known as the Demand Management Alternative was certified as the locally preferred alternative and cleared for construction. This alternative consists of the initial construction of a three lane roadway (in each direction of travel), followed by construction of two HOV lanes with a center median of 88 feet. The corridor also includes collector/distributor roads and climbing lanes where traffic conditions require. The future need for park -and -ride facilities constructed in close proximity to the corridor was also identified in the EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Five potential park -and -ride lot sites located near the SJHTC were identified in conjunction with the project. The SJHTC project includes provisions for exclusive high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and access, which complements use of future nearby park -and -ride lots. One of these locations is near Ford Road, although no specific site has been determined. It is anticipated that parking demand near Ford Road is less than at other locations, since this is a destination area rather than an origin area for carpools and transit riders.2 Therefore a one -acre park - and -ride lot consisting of a total of 15 parking spaces would be sufficient to handle demand at this location.3 Implementation of a future park -and -ride lot near the Ford Road/San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor interchange is a separate project from the Ford Road extension and realignment. Any future park and ride facility in this vicinity will require further environmental documentation and review, independently of the current Ford Road EIR. MacArthur Boulevard Improvements Two separate projects to improve traffic conditions on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of the SJHTC have been proposed or recently implemented. The first project involved widening MacArthur from four to six lanes on its existing alignment between Bison Avenue and the 2. Volume I, TCA Eni/EISI for San Joaquin Hills Transportation Condor, pg. 5-13. 3. Ibid TCA EDUEISI 9843-JPR-11608-X 1.6 current terminus of the SR-73 Freeway. This project also included reconstruction of the northbound and southbound MacArthur Boulevard connectors to University Drive. Construction began in August, 1990 and was completed in early 1991. The second project on MacArthur Boulevard would widen and reconstruct MacArthur between San Diego Creek and SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway), and potentially extend Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Coast Drive. The project might include the ultimate grade separation of MacArthur Boulevard over the Corridor. This unfunded project would widen MacArthur to six and eight lanes, consistent with the Newport Beach and Irvine General Plans. Several road improvements and associated road name changes have occurred, or are planned, along approximately the same alignment as the former Bonita Canyon Road. Bonita Canyon Road existed until 1990 when it was replaced by Pelican Hill Road. Subsequently the roadway was renamed Newport Coast Drive, extended to SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and opened for use in fall of 1991. Ultimately, the SJHTC will use the Newport Coast Drive alignment, from MacArthur Boulevard to approximately one mile southeast of existing Ford Road. Newport Coast Drive is a new four- and six -lane highway connecting existing SR-73 (MacArthur Boulevard) and SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway) by bypassing Corona Del Mar. Recently opened, Newport Coast Drive follows the former alignment of Bonita Canyon Road and the proposed alignment of the SJHTC between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed Ford Road extension. It then follows the proposed SJHTC alignment between proposed Ford Road and a future SJHTC/Newport Coast Drive interchange before connecting with SR-1. Portions of the roadway have been constructed to four lanes, with later expansion to six lanes planned. This new access road linking UCI with Newport Coast Drive has recently been opened. The roadway may be extended in the future to link with Bison Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard consistent with the General Plan Circulation Elements of the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the Orange County MPAH. This roadway would be realigned with a Bison Avenue interchange as part of the Corridor project. The Costa Mesa Freeway is being extended from Bristol to 19th Street in the City of Costa Mesa. Four mixed flow lanes will be constructed in each direction below grade. Extension of SR-55 will improve the link between central Orange County and the beach communities, and help relieve congestion on Newport Boulevard. Phase One was completed in the summer of 1991. Phase Two is scheduled for completion in mid-1992. 9613.3PR 116N.X 1.7 SR-73/SR-55. I405 Confluence Improvements A series of projects are proposed within this confluence area. Some of these projects have received environmental clearance and are expected to be funded through cooperative efforts of the cities in the area, the County of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority, Caltrans and the TCA. Improvements to I-405 between Harbor and SR-73 include restriping, adding one auxiliary lane in each direction and improving ramping. Improvements to SR-73 between I-405 and Birch Street include adding two mixed -use lanes in each direction and widening the northbound SR 73 to northbound I-405 connector. Improvements to the SR-73/SR-55 connectors include construction of the two missing Route 55/73 connector ramps. Ford Road Vicinity Park and Ride Lot The need for a park -and -ride lot was identified as part of the planning process for SJHTC in order to facilitate use of associated HOV lanes. A plan for a park -and -ride facility for the Ford Road vicinity will be developed and implemented. Key contact person is as follows: Lead Agency Ms. Macie Cleary -Milan Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-3298 1.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM The purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (NW) is to report, according to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the successful implementation of TCA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 4; Ford Road. The following policies will be met by implementation of the MMP. o State Law: Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (Exhibit Q. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Administrative Code - Chapter 7. 9843-JPR-11608-X 1-8 As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, this Program will monitor three types ' of mitigation measures. They are as follows: o Numbered mitigation measures adopted by Final TCA MR 4; o Mitigation measures arising from or contained in agreements or as conditions of Corps of Engineer 404 Permit approvals and Fish and Game 1601 approvals. ' These mitigation measures and conditions will be listed as an Addendum to this program, when available; and, o Mitigation incorporated into final design and cited in Final EIR 4 as having M environmental benefit. Implementation shall occur in conjunction with the construction of Ford Road and the San ' Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I I L� 11 i LJ 1 9843-M.116%-X 1-9 1 II II l II 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 LOCATION The project study area is within the undeveloped Bonita Canyon area of the City of Irvine, at its southerly boundary with the City of Newport Beach (Figure 2.1-1). The extension and realignment of Ford Road is proposed through largely undeveloped land located north and east of the intersection of existing Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard (Figure 2.1-2). The proposed project is located south of the proposed extension of Bison Avenue, existing Newport Coast Drive and the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), and west of the existing Newport Coast Drive and Coyote Canyon landfill access road. The project study area includes the Lange Financial Plaza (formerly Urbanus Square) and a ' Pacific Bell central office building. The majority of the project study area is vacant, undeveloped land actively used for cattle grazing. 2.2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The proposed Ford Road extension and realignment is a mitigation measure for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to reduce traffic and noise impacts to existing residential areas adjacent to Ford Road and San Miguel Road. The extension of Ford Road to the SJHTC is a planned future road improvement included in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the General Plan Circulation Elements of both the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. The project is initiated in response to City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 90-108 of November 13, 1990, expressing the City's comments on the SJHTC EIR and the City's position on Corridor related facilities and issues. The project would be implemented consistent with mitigation measures in the Final SJHTC EIR / TCA / EIR1 (April 1991). 2.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT The proposed Ford Road project will realign Ford Road from its current location along the City of Newport Beach/City of Irvine boundary, to entirely within the City of Irvine. Additionally, proposed Ford Road would be extended to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) thereby providing a link to MacArthur Boulevard to the west. The proposed extended and realigned Ford Road would provide an easterly juncture at an approved interchange with the SJHTC and a westerly juncture at the existing intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. ' 9843-JPR-11608--X 2-1 II I M �wropr eKti STUN AREA �� _:4.. ✓ PL). • � i ♦ • r a • • ri. LEGEND ® Study Area Existing Roads -- -- Proposed Roads — — City Bomdary ro"; 21-1 Regional location FORD ROAD EXTENSION THEKEr[HOOMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES FEW m its m m! m m m �' m m m AQU T `�` ♦ MLA DNS �� ♦ ��ADON CORRIDOR ffOWER ~ On tr• ti• BAN HILL ROAD) Study Area Existing Roads DttMNG Proposed DR DRIVE E Roads F NEWPORT ------ Direct 1' OF NEWPORT BEACH HILLS Connectors DQSIING SAN MIGUEL DRIVE CENTER --- Indirect NEWPORT HIUS DRIVE WEST Connectors figure: 2.1-2 Local Vicinity FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT F] Fm---1 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Realigned Ford Road is proposed as a four -lane divided primary arterial highway consistent with its current designation on the MPAH. The project would include either one or two separate road connectors for vehicular access between existing Ford Road and the proposed realigned and extended Ford Road. The project also includes construction of cul-de-sacs at both ends of existing Ford Road (east of Macarthur Boulevard). Project implementation would consist of: 1) construction of one of two alternative alignments for a realigned new Ford Road); 2) construction of one or two connector roads to provide vehicular access between existing and proposed Ford Road; 3) addition of standard cul-de-sacs along existing Ford Road east of its current intersection with MacArthur Boulevard, 4) Provisions for continued access to the Coyote Canyon landfill site via a Coyote Canyon Road extension from Ford Road. Two base project alignments (Alignments A and B) are being considered for the extended and realigned Ford Road along with alternative sets of indirect (I) and direct (D) connectors (Figure 2.3-1). This report analyzes a total of six Ford Road base project alternatives as follows: A(I), A(11), A(D), B(I), B(Il), and B(D). Coyote Canyon Road alignment alternatives C-3 and C-5 are also evaluated. Alignment characteristics are depicted in Table 2.3-1. (It should be noted that in addition to the six base project alternatives described above, there are four other roadway alignment alternatives analyzed in Section 5.0 in accordance with CEQA Section 15126 (d). Additionally, other alignment alternatives were identified during the environmental process but are not considered feasible as discussed in Section 5.2 and were rejected from further consideration). Typical cross sections for construction of proposed Ford Road indicate an overall right-of-way width of 116 feet for Alignments A and B (Figure 2.3-2). Proposed right-of-way consists of a 14 foot -wide median, two travel lanes in each direction (one is 13 feet -wide and one is 12 feet - wide) one 8 foot -wide bicycle lane/curb and gutter in each direction, and a 5 foot -wide sidewalk inside an 18 foot parkway. Modifications to these dimensions may occur with detailed plans in conformance with City of Irvine Standards. Typical cross sections for proposed connector roads indicate an overall right-of-way width of 116 feet and include the same configuration and widths as proposed with Alignments A and B. Direct connectors (D) would align with Newport Hills Drive West and San Miguel Drive between existing Ford Road and the proposed Ford Road. Indirect connectors (1) would tie into existing Ford Road at approximately 1,600 feet west of the existing San Miguel/Ford Road intersection (at the greenbelt) and at Hillside Drive. The A(11) and B(II) alternatives would delete this indirect connector at Hillside Drive. No widening of existing Ford Road is proposed as part of the project. 9843•iPP-11W8-X 24 1 TABLE 2.3-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ALIGNMENT/CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES ' Total Right -of Length -way Cut/Fill Cost $4 Alternative (Miles) (Acres) (Cu.Yds) (000's) Ford Road: A(D) 1.6 20 114,029/ 13,371 287,718 A(I) 1.5 19 82,823/ 234,302 12,852 iA(Ii) -- -- -- -- B(D) 1.3 17 101,619/ 12,974 2411724 B(I) 1.3 16 100,941/ 12,683 206,135 B(I1) -- -- -- -- Coyote Canyon Road: C-3 0.3 4 13,579/ 596 41,015 C-5 0.4 6 24,959 714 48,807 I 1 4. Cops do not include rightof way acquisition, or various mitigation measures, such as possible soundwalis, landscaping enhancements, biological resource replacement/enhancement, or archaeological salvage. ' 9843-JPR-11608-X 2-5 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE *INDIRECT CONNECTOR (12) INCLUDES OPTION OF DELETING EXISTING FORD ROAD SEGMENT BETWEEN SAN MIGUEL DRIVE AND HILLSIDE DRIVE Alignment Map LEGEND PROJECT LIMITS FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 2.3-1 figure: S-1 5 660 yj THE KEITFt CO © PANIES 0 330 990 , R/W R/W C.L. 30 301 20 20f I 1 1 81 12' 120 81? 1 1 I I PROPOSED COYOTE CANYON ROAD R/W C/L R/W SS' S8' 40' 40' I 18' 8' 12' 13' 7' 7' 13' 12' 8' 18' TYPICAL CROSS SECTION FOR FORD ROAD AND PROPOSED CONNECTOR ROADS Typical Cross Sections figure: 2.3-2 FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COWANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Austin-Fnust Assnc.. Inc Coyote Canyon Road: Construction of the SJHTC will remove existing access to the former Coyote Canyon landfill site (via Coyote Canyon Road and Newport Coast Drive). As part of the proposed Ford Road Project, a new access road from the extended and realigned Ford Road to the Coyote Canyon Landfill will be provided. Although the landfill is permanently closed, the new access road to the landfill area will be used for maintenance of the closed landfill and may be used for access to a future Orange County recreational project on the landfill site and adjacent development area. Typical cross sections for the proposed Coyote Canyon landfill access road indicate an overall right-of-way width of 60 feet (Figure 2.3-2). Plans indicate two 12 foot -wide travel lanes (one in each direction), an 8 foot -wide paved bicycle lane/shoulder in each direction and a 10 foot - wide unpaved drainage ditch. 2.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The objectives of the project are summarized as follows. 1. Implement the General Plan Circulation Elements of the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, as well as the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to improve regional circulation. 2. Provide a temporary detour for Newport Coast Drive traffic during construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 3. Buffer existing residential areas adjacent to existing Ford Road and San Miguel Drive from traffic and transportation -related impacts. 4. Provide a direct route between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and MacArthur Boulevard. S. Provide continued access to the Coyote Canyon landfill site via Coyote Canyon Road. 6. Realign and extend Ford Road to be compatible with a future park -and -ride facility proposed in conjunction with the SJHTC. 7. Provide local vehicular access between the realigned Ford Road and neighborhoods south of existing Ford Road. 2.5 PROJECT PHASING The extension and realignment of Ford Road is proposed in one phase over a period of 18 months, commencing in 1992. The proposed project would be constructed prior to construction of the nearby segment of the SJHTC. The SJHTC is scheduled to open for traffic in 1996. 9813-IPR 11609-X 2_9 t 3.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE 3.1 HYDROLOGY 3.1.2 EXISTING A draft hydrology and hydraulics investigation of the Ford Road project study area was completed by Nolte and Associates, engineering consultant to the Transportation Corridor Agencies, in October 1991. This study includes an evaluation of drainage conditions and proposed drainage improvements for the realigned and extended roadway. Additional information on local drainage, flooding, groundwater and water quality has been derived from the SanJoaquin Hills Transportation Corridor EWEIS 1, which is incorporated by reference within this current EIR. A summary of the findings of these investigations with respect to baseline conditions is presented below. The complete Nolte and Associates technical report is contained in Appendix B. The project study area has a Mediterranean type climate characterized by long, dry summers and mild winters. The average annual precipitation is 13 inches. The major portion of precipitation occurs during the period from November to March, with little or no rain from May to October. Watershed The Ford Road project is located within the Bonita Canyon watershed. The Bonita Canyon watershed is one of several tributary drainage areas to the larger, 93,000 acre San Diego Creek watershed which discharges to Upper Newport Bay (Figure 3.1-1). Bonita Canyon drains approximately 3,280 acres of the San Joaquin Hills. The general direction of drainage is northwesterly. Drainage The Bonita Canyon watershed is characterized by intermittent drainage courses which discharge surface flows primarily during storm events. Year-round low flows occur as a result of minor springs, seeps and urban watering activities. Most of the surface drainage running through Bonita Creek comes from the northern side of the San Joaquin Hills. Water collects in the canyon area, forming intermittent streams that eventually flow toward San Diego Creek and ultimately drain into upper Newport Bay. Two I such intermittent streams exist within the study area (Figure 3.1-2). 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-1 s F, DATA IAN4 l DELNI >r LEGEND 7I� n» �-1\ WUNA x Il1MN0 t"" +�1 b� aN"E D CANYON \' l `enillvan � `1 rk - "RSHADY CANYON BONITA BOMMER', �\ � CANYON \� CANYON \ t NNMtA CAIfYON FY \ a„ �r -:^tre ,h l "WRV0111 wui+ +oAaAN \ COYOTE_ "�""" CANYON • SA .� �\ ULLY to,( I LOS �. ) MORO (EMERALC CYO•. �� r� iTG.�AANYONSI , . I CANYON /CANYWN Watershed Boundaries �/ \ \ I MUDDY S Watershed Outlet �� (CANYON) S 1 Reservoir, Marsh, or Lake 100-Year Flood Zone DIEGO s I :VE 1- Lse!iilon�� . w OIESJ 3.1-1 Watersheds, Water Courses, and Floodplains FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE WM ooMPMIEs AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES La I 1 I )!r Drainage LEGEND NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSE FLOODPLAIN (APPROXIMATE) BDRAINAGE BOUNDARY PROPOSED REINFORCED �--. CONCRETE PIPE (RCP) (24' AND ABOVE) PROPOSED BRIDGE DRAINAGE LOCATION (SEE TABLE) ! FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT i TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.1-1 165 660 ® THE KEITH COMPANIES 10 0 330 990 The project study area, by nature of its proximity to Upper Newport Bay, plays a small but incremental role as a contributor to the identified water quality maintenance problems of the Bay. Soils of the project study area are generally considered to be highly erodable. Soils encountered on the project study area are defined as follows: "High runoff potential with slow infiltration rates, consisting mainly of clay soils with a permanent high water table or shallow soils over impervious material. "5 The 100-year floodplain for the Bonita Reservoir is located in the southeast portion of the study area. North of the project study area, the areas that lie adjacent to Bonita Canyon Road are within the 100-year floodplain; however, the majority of the project study area is within areas of minimal flooding. The project study area is in transition from an unimproved/natural drainage condition to a modified or improved drainage condition as a result of streambed modifications to Coyote Canyon Channel and Bonita Creek associated with Newport Coast Drive (former Pelican Hill Road) improvements, the approved SJHTC and its interchange with Ford Road. Approximately 8,400 linear feet of Bonita Creek downstream of Bonita Reservoir will be realigned or rerouted as a result of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) project. SJHTC impacts to Bonita Creek will be mitigated by the conversion of non-native grassland and land under commercial lease to the nursery and Christmas tree farm, to permanent wetlands. This new wetland area will be located adjacent to SJHTC, between Bonita Reservoir and MacArthur Boulevard. These impacts are fully addressed in the SJHTC EIR/EIS 1. Water Bodies There are three surface water bodies of relevance to the Bonita Canyon project study area: Bonita Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, and Upper Newport Bay. Bonita Reservoir - The Bonita Reservoir is located immediately northeast of Ford Road and south of future the SJHTC. This small unlined reservoir was previously used for agricultural irrigation supply storage purposes. This use was discontinued several years ago and the Bonita Reservoir is now abandoned. Both the Bonita Canyon and Coyote Canyon drainage courses pass through the reservoir. It also receives the San Joaquin Reservoir drainage water outflows. Although currently not in use, the Bonita Reservoir does provide some runoff retention and desiltation capability during major storm events. S. Soil Conservation Service -Group D wide; based on wit maps in the Onnge County Hydrology Manuel. 9843,TPR-11608-X 3A San Joaquin Reservoir - San Joaquin Reservoir is located southeast of the project study area and is a domestic water supply storage facility operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). San Joaquin Reservoir is designed for water supply storage purposes and does not provide a flood control function for the area. The reservoir contributes runoff to the downstream drainage system only insofar as seepage near the base of the reservoir dam flows on a steady, year round basis downstream to Bonita Reservoir. This low -flow seepage 125^2 helps to sustain the Bonita Reservoir wetland characteristics. , Upper Newport Bay - Upper Newport Bay is the receiving water body for all runoff generated within the entire San Diego Creek watershed (118 square miles total). The Upper Bay is an ' officially designated ecological reserve under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game. It provides significant wildlife habitat and supports a number of rare/endangered bud species. Other beneficial uses include non -contact recreation, such as ' boating. Upper Newport Bay is subject to heavy sediment -laden runoff flows generated from within its , 118 square mile tributary watershed during major storm events. The discharge of sediment and its adverse impact on the ecological reserve area has been recognized by local agencies, and measures to control the problem have been implemented under the Newport Bay ' Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control planning program. This program has included the development of structural control measures (i.e., instream siltation basins) and recommended land management practices for agricultural and ' construction sites to minimize sedimentation impacts on the Upper Newport Bay water environment. The instream siltation basins in San Diego Creek have been in operation for several years and joint maintenance by the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange , Environmental Management Agency have provided periodic removal of silt. Flood Hazards/flood Control ' Flooding has not been a major problem for the Bonita Canyon watershed in the past; however, ' during and immediately after storm events significant runoff and streamflows can occur. Runoff concentrates rapidly in the hillside areas and, during high intensity storms, short duration floodflows with high peaks are typically generated through the downstream systems. A Floodplain Hydraulic Study prepared for SJHTC EIR/EIS 1 identified 100-year floodplain limits within Bonita Creek downstream of Bonita Reservoir,6 r-1 L 1 6. F10odp4in Hydnulie Saxiy, sun toyuin H104 Tnnrponelion Corridor, Much 14,1990 (included in TCA EDUES 1 Appendix C.) 9643-M-11W8 X 3-5 1 II II Groundwater Groundwater in the area generally occurs in the alluvial deposits within and adjacent to existing streamcourses including Bonita Creek and its tributaries. Groundwater depths within the alluvial floodplain of Bonita Creek near Ford Road are estimated at seven feet.? Groundwater recharge within Bonita Canyon occurs within Bonita Reservoir and Bonita Creek. Water Quality Water quality considerations include surface water conditions, groundwater conditions and relevant water quality management planning programs. The County of Orange, EMA/Environmental Studies Unit has performed limited surface water quality analyses for both the Bonita Canyon and San Diego Creek drainage basins. Previous sampling data, taken from points along Bonita Canyon downstream of Coyote Canyon and along San Diego Creek above its confluence with Bonita Canyon, indicated that Bonita Canyon surface waters had higher concentrations of total coliform, oil/grease, chromium, copper and zinc as compared to San Diego Creek.8 These higher levels could have been indicative of possible runoff or leachate contamination from the Coyote Canyon landfill, prior to installation of leachate control measures. Groundwater quality data for Bonita Canyon and Coyote Canyon indicates high levels of total dissolved solids (IDS). Analysis has been restricted to the semiperched zone within alluvium extending south and east of the Bonita Reservoir to Coyote Canyon. Because groundwater in the area is high in total dissolved solids, groundwater is not extracted for human use. However, as in the case of surface water quality, the available data does not provide a basis for definitive characterization of groundwater quality at the project study area. Water Quality Management Planning The primary responsibility for regulating activities that affect the quality of all waters within the State rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Other regional and local level water quality management planning programs with a direct or indirect relationship to the Ford Road project include those of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, and the Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. 7. Preliminary Geotechnlcal/Geological Report, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Condor prepared by Geofon and User Geotechnical, September 1989. 8. Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill EIR 507-Appendix C, County of Orange, 1983. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-6 11 Sant Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - The Ford Road project study area is located within the Sant Ana River Basin and hence falls under the -jurisdiction of the Sant Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The adopted Water Quality Control Plan for the Sant Ana River Basin outlines a series of quality objectives (e.g., TDS concentrations), policies, and definitive program actions (e.g., erosion and sedimentation control) designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of regional surface and groundwaters (Santa Ana RWQCB, 1975). In addition to implementing the Basin Plan, the Sant Ana RWQCB is responsible for issuing regulatory permits and establishing waste discharge requirements for activities that may release non -point source runoff wastes to groundwater or surface waters. The Ford Road extension and realignment project will comply with the basin plan and appropriate permit requirements of the RWQCB. SCAG 208 Areawide Plan - Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and amendments to the Clean Water Act of 1977, a national policy was established to control water pollution sources and manage the nation's waters to meet prescribed federal quality standards. Section 208 of this Act, as implemented at the regional level, requires the preparation of areawide plans to develop and implement solutions to identified water quality problems. SCAG was designated to prepare such a plan for the South Coast area which includes Orange County. The adopted South Coast Areawide plan provides a framework of Water Quality Management policies and action items dealing with point source (e.g., treatment plant discharge) and non - point source (e.g., runoff) water quality problems and control strategies. The 208 Plan is consistent with, and complementary to, the Basin Plans prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Of relevance to the Ford Road project is the Newport Bay Priority Program component of the Areawide Plan. For Newport Bay, the areawide plan identifies sediment discharge and its adverse impact on the ecological reserve area as a priority water quality problem. The need for an overall watershed erosion control plan was identified, the response to which is described in the following. Newoort Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comgrehensive Stormw^ter Sedimentation Control ELM - In response to the identified problems of sedimentation and its adverse impact on Upper Newport Bay, SCAG and the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine have cooperated in the development of a comprehensive control program for the San Diego Creek watershed. This program is comprised of three major components: Early Action and Interim Plan; Best Management Practices (BMPs) plans for construction and agricultural activities; and the development of a comprehensive stormwater sedimentation control plan for the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay watershed. 9943-JM-116MX 3-7 I The Early Action and Interim Plan provided for the construction of debris basins in the San ' Diego Creek channel near its confluence with Upper Newport Bay. The Best Management Practices component has been developed and this aspect of the program identifies a number of administrative, land and structural management measures which can be employed at construction and agricultural sites to control the amount of sediment output. Rounding out the overall program is the development of a comprehensive sedimentation control plan which incorporates the aforementioned components together with the implementation of additional structural measures (e.g., debris basins). ' 3.1.2 IMPACTS Drainage improvements proposed for each for the Ford Road alternative alignments, with ' connector combinations, are indicated in Table 3.1-1 and depicted in Figure 3.1-2. The Orange County Hydrology Design Manual requiring a 25 year frequency design was ' utilized in sizing Ford Road drainage structures. Where off -site drainage joins the on -site runoff, the off -site runoff was also calculated based on the 100-year storm. The floodplain study of Bonita Creek for the SJHTC previously defined water levels at design years for the ' outfall of a box culvert downstream of Bonita Reservoir. Increased Runoff to Drainage Crossings Roadway drainage from the Ford Road surface (alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), B(D), B(I) and B(Il) would be discharged into identified Bonita Creek tributary drainage crossings. ' The roadway surface would be paved which would increase total runoff. The effect of this increased runoff in tributary channels will be incremental, though not significant with respect to cumulative flows to Bonita Creek. The increased runoff will have a incremental effect on the design discharge in the Bonita Creek channel. However, the increase in peak flow attributable to the project is small, and will be accommodated in the downstream channel with no significant impacts. ' The Hydrology and Hydraulics Report included in Appendix B provides background hydrologic data and calculations of 25 year peak discharge for future Ford Road drainage crossing structures. The analysis provides guidelines and directions for preliminary design of ' each crossing. r ' 9943JPR-11608-X 3.8 I TABLE 3.1-1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES LOCAnON1 ALIGNMIENT TYYEZ FLOW3 1 A(D),A(1),A(Il) Bridge NA4 2 B(D),B(I),B(11) Bridge NA4 3 A(D) 24" RCP 17.7 CPS 4 A(D) 72" RCP 243.3 CFS B(D) 72" RCP 245.6 CFS 5 A(D) 30" RCP 19.0 CPS A(%A(II) 30" RCP 22.6 CFS 6 A(D),A(%A(1l),B(D), B(I),B(II) 24" RCP 11.3 CFS 7 A(D),A(1),A(11),B(D), B(%B(11) BRIDGE 609.2 CFS 8 A(I),A(Il) 48" RCP 80.7 CFS B(1),B(1l) 42' RCP 74.5 CPS Notes: 1. See Figure 3.1-2. 2. Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) 18" or less not indicated (see Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, Nolte and Associates, October 1991, for locations). 3. 25 year peak flows. 4. Not available; bridge was assumed and sized at this location to avoid wetland encroachments. None of the Ford Road alignment alternatives will encroach within any identified 100-year base floodplain, and no significant flood hazards impacts will result from the project. The floodplain impacts of the future Ford Road interchange with SJHTC are addressed in the SJHTC EIR/EIS 1 (Section 4.3, page 4-26). 9943-JM-1160/ X 3.9 3 Ford Road Alignments A and B both include bridge structures at tributary drainages which will minimize or avoid impacts to "waters of the United States" and wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under either Alignment A or B, however, encroachments within wetlands in upper reaches of the westerly tributary would occur with westerly direct connector (D). Either selection of the indirect connector (1), or inclusion of a bridge with the direct connector (D) crossing would avoid wetlands impacts at this location. These impacts are more fully described in Section 3.2.2 (Biology Impacts). Operation of realigned and extended Ford Road would add quantities of pollutants into drainage areas immediately adjacent to the selected alignment. These pollutants will result from vehicular travel related to normal roadway operations (oil, gas, grease, lead, zinc, nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand, dust and filterable residue). The magnitude of the potential impact is a function of the pollutant concentration that reaches receiving waters during a storm event or the accumulation of pollutants in receiving waters over a period of years. The sensitivity of biologic receptors also plays a role in determining the magnitude of potential impacts. Based on the results of previous studies for Bonita Creek performed for the SJHTC EIR/EIS, direct concentrations of Ford Road pollutants are not anticipated to exceed State and federal critical levels of pollutants. However, given the sensitivity of downstream receiving waters including the Upper Newport Bay, the actual pollutant loadings within each tributary stream channel will be further reduced below significant levels with successful implementation of a Runoff Management Plan and Sediment Control Plan, specified as mitigation herein. Grading and construction work on the realigned Ford Road may result in potential erosion of temporarily exposed ground surfaces, particularly cut and fill slopes. Uncontrolled, exposed surfaces could produce increased amounts of sediment that would be transported by storm runoff to local water courses and to coastal beaches. This potential construction impact is discussed in Section 3.13. Post construction degradation of water quality of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve/San Diego Creek Channel drainage system could occur from pollutants associated with Ford Road runoff. Although concentrations of pollutants in watershed runoff immediately adjacent to Ford Road may be elevated, actual pollutant loadings in water courses would not be significant and therefore would not be likely to adversely affect water quality in the Ecological Reserve. Actual impacts to the Ecological Reserve are dependent upon dynamic storm factors such as intensity and duration. The more significant the storm event, the more diluted the pollutant concentration will be and the more rapidly the runoff is flushed downstream through the drainages. However, without mitigation, a potential cumulative impact may occur as a result of incremental degradation of water quality for pollutant loadings into the reserve from the proposed project and other roadway runoff. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-10 125'3 125-3 11 Ford Road project coordination and participation in the Runoff Management Plan to be implemented as part of the SWC project will include facilities to route and detain runoff from both projects, such that pollutant levels downstream would be below significant levels. Early coordination of the Runoff Management Plan with Caltrans and the appropriate resource agencies will ensure that the proper design and maintenance requirements of the proposed mitigation measures are implemented. Mitigation measures are included which are designed to prevent concentrations of oil and grease from the highway entering downstream water courses and Upper Newport Bay. Implementation of these measures would reduce this potential impact to be within the levels of criteria established by the RWQCB Water Quality Plan. Therefore, the beneficial hydrological uses of these water resources would not be significantly affected by pollutant loadings into runoff from the proposed Ford Road project. Construction and operation of a realigned and extended Ford Road would not significantly impact groundwater resources. The groundwater quality in the San Diego Creek basin is poor to marginally poor in Bonita Creek. There are no known wells downstream from Ford Road that might be impacted by the proposed project. No principal or sole source aquifers are known to be located in the area. 3.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures are proposed to mitigate impacts of the project on streambed modifications, floodplains, erosion and sedimentation of drainage channels, and water quality. Unless otherwise indicated the measures apply equally to each of the project "build" alternatives (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). The Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Appendix B) specifies criteria by which the project drainage facilities will be designed (per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Orange County Hydrology Manual). In addition, the following measures will also be incorporated: 1. Prior to final plan approval, design plans shall show that the design of outlets to Bonita Creek and tributaries are based on the confirmed Bonita Canyon Creek water surface elevation. Final design shall be based on a thorough hydraulic analysis, taking into consideration the overflow design flood for the upstream San Joaquin Reservoir as well as the downstream design water surface of Bonita Creek. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(II), A(12)0 B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9643,1PR-Iiws x 3.11 II 11 23'10 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 I I 11 I 2. Prior to final plan approval, design plans shall show rock protection to minimize ' erosion and downstream sedimentation in areas requiring slope protection at inlets and outlets of structures. This would include drainage locations 1 through 8 of Figure 3.1- 1. Such protection measures shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist to ' minimize disturbances to adjacent wetlands resources. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(U), A(M), B(D), B(l), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 1 3. Prior to final plan approval during design and plan check review, project plans (drainage improvements) will be coordinated with the resource agencies, and with the ' cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, Caltrans and the County of Orange to avoid any adverse impacts on those agencies' facilities. The design of drainage facilities will be consistent with hydraulic studies prepared by the OCEMA. (Alignments A(D), A(l), 123��0 ' A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 4. Prior to final design, the TCA shall prepare a detailed Runoff Management Plan (RMP). ' The plan shall address the provision and location of facilities to route and detain project runoff for the purpose of maintaining peak flows and flow velocities downstream of the ' project at or below existing rates and preventing project pollutants from reaching improved and unimproved downstream drainages. County of Orange Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be included in the runoff facilities for the project as determined appropriate by the Design Engineer. The RMP will contain provisions for changes to the plan (e.g. alternative mechanisms plant materials) if necessary during project design and/or construction phases to achieve the stated goals and performance standards at an equal or greater level. The plan shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control ' Board (RWQCB) and Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) 23'� Environmental Planning Division for review and comment. The Runoff Management Plan zrj-pj shall, at a minimum, accomplish the following: a. Assess the existing water quality in a representative sample of downstream improved and unimproved drainages for the purposes of establishing a baseline standards. ' Water quality standards established by the OCEMA and the RWQCB shall be used as reference standards. ' b. Locate and construct detention/settlement basins within the vicinity of drainages identified in the DEIR as being potentially impacted by project pollutants. The ' detention/settlement basins shall be of the appropriate size to retain runoff and intercept the majority of pollutants (first flush storms) from the peak flow up to and including the 25-year storm. Provisions for metering runoff shall be included ' in the design of the detention/settlement basins so as not to overlead treatment capacity. Detention basins shall be equipped with oil and grease traps or some other ' 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-12 I acceptable method to aid in the breakdown and permanent removal of pollutants. The Runoff Management Plan will specify cleaning of grease traps and disposal of ' waste material. C. Locate and construct grass covering drainage channels from the project to the ' detention/settlement basins identified per the above. d. Route project runoff through the above drainage channels to the detention/settlement , basins. e. Develop and landscape palette suitable for use in project drainages and , detention/settlement basins which promotes the use of plant material able to breakdown project pollutants. Channel design to accommodate flow reduction affect 23,3 of chosen plant materials. ' �,3 f. Establish a regular testing methodology and schedule to monitor the level of heavy metals and other pollutants within the drainage/settlement basins and representative downstream improved and unimproved drainages. g. Report findings of testing to the TCA Board on a regular basis through the ' Mitigation Monitoring Program process. h. Develop measures to reduce pollutant levels which exceed the established acceptable ' threshold levels as provided by the RWQCB. Submit measures to the RWQCB and OCEMA for review prior to RMP approval and construction. These measures will assure that impacts related to the project do not cause downstream exceedance of ' RWQCB and County of Orange standards, The plan will specify a process for application of these mitigation measures. ' i. Establish maintenance procedures to ensure adequate function and prevention of accidental breakdown of detention basins, grease traps, drainage channels and other , runoff facilities. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), 'B(12), C-3, C-5 and No ' Project). 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, if deemed necessary by the Regional Water , Quality Control Board, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit shall be obtained from the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. A component of the NPDES permit is a Best Management , Plan (herein referred to as a Runoff Management Plan and Sediment Control Plan), which includes development of short-term and long-term structural and non-structural strategies for stormwater management. The plan should also include long-term funding mechanisms and commitment to support required maintenance of the structural implementation components of the plan. The plan should be reviewed and approved by ' 9343.3PA•I1t 0! X 3.13 the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach as a component of the NPDES Permit. Water extracted from dewatering wells shall meet current Environmental Protection Agency discharge requirements. If necessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C- 3, C-5 and No Project). Section 3.2 of this document, which addresses wetland and biological resources, contains extensive mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Mitigation pertaining to erosion is outlined in Section 3.13 Construction Impacts. 3.1.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IlIIDACTS Incorporation of the foregoing measures will reduce project impacts on streambeds, floodplains, erosion and sedimentation drainage courses and downstream receiving waters, and water quality to insignificant levels. ' 9943-IPR-11608-X 3-14 11 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Following is a summary of the Biologies Resources Assessment and Imoact Analysis. Ford Road Extension, dated November, 1991 and prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, This report can be found in its entirety in Appendix C. The biological resources of the proposed Ford Road Extension study area are described below from information compiled through field reconnaissance, supplemented by review of existing documentation of biological resources within the project vicinity. The study area is defined as that area bordered by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, the existing Ford Road to the south, the future San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to the north, and Coyote Canyon Road to the east. The study area was surveyed by Michael Brandman Associates staff biologists on April 3, May 1, May 8, and August 22, 1991. The entire project study area was surveyed on foot. Plants encountered during the surveys were recorded in terms of relative abundance and host habitat (plant community) type. Plant communities were mapped with the aid of a 200-scale (1" = 200') aerial photograph and 200-scale topographic map of the project study area. Wildlife species observed during the field surveys by sights, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded. In addition to species actually detected, expected use of the study area by other animals was derived from review of literature pertaining to the known habitat requirements and ranges of regional wildlife species. HABITAT AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The vegetation within the Ford Road Extension study area comprises three distinct plant communities: non-native grassland (207.4 acres), coastal sage scrub (34.2 acres), and riparian/wetland habitat (28.3 acres) (Figure 3.2-1). During the surveys of the project study area, 151 plant species in 46 families were identified. The common plant and animal species observed, or expected to occur, in each of the plant communities on the study area are discussed below. Vegetation The majority of the study area supports non-native grassland vegetation. This community occurs throughout the study area on the relatively level areas and gentle slopes that have been subject to grazing and discing, Some of the more common species comprising this community 9643-IPA-11606-X 3.15 include short -podded mustard (Brassicagenicul , wild oat Av n sp.), red -stemmed filaree rodium cicutriuml, cheeseweed Maly a narvitlora), and cardoon (Cynara cardunculus). Wildlife Non-native grasslands are used by a number of native reptiles, mammals, and birds including some sensitive species. Grasslands are especially beneficial to granivorous (seed -eating) species, and as foraging habitat for raptors (birds of prey). No amphibians were observed during the study area surveys, which were conducted during the dry season when these animals are inactive. Two species of amphibians, the Pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseos vacificus) and western toad Mufo boreas), are commonly found in grasslands in Southern California, and are expected to occur in this habitat within the Ford Road study area. Three species of reptile, including the side -blotched lizard (Rt stansburianal, western fence lizard (Scelonorus occidentalis), and western whiptail (, nemidophorus ji ns), were observed in the non-native grassland during the survey. This habitat is expected to support other reptiles within the study area, including the coachwhip snake (Mastic his flagellum , gopher snake Wj9wphis melanoleucus), common kingsnake (LamRropeltis getulu , and western rattlesnake (Crotalus ni i . Bird species expected to occur in the non-native grasslands on the study area are primarily common native species, such as the Brewer's blackbird (Ruphagus cvanocephalus), and non - natives, such as the European starling Sturnus vul ari . Other common native species observed during the surveys include the mourning dove (Zenaida macrou , common raven (Corvus corax), western meadowlark Sturnella neglect , house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and lesser goldfinch arduelis sap ltria). One grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savanarrum) was observed and heard several times during the April survey. During the winter months, a number of migratory seed -eating birds are expected to use the grasslands, including the savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), lark sparrow (_Chondestes grammacus), dark -eyed junco .(Junco hyemalis), golden -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia ri ill , white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leuconhrys), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). 9843-]PR-11608-X 3-16 ] � ` I ) " V i� � i�, -✓r_ `Ao.� ��r �,.t�' iril,; C)`V✓I? "�',�� m.>, tj I, ,, �•`.i y 1111\+_ 11'''�x�(d('a�•'1� „ltt\!,`�1, 1�•�.:'("s' I�'r�. - .�1,! 1. :, •..\• ,.I �1 `___ I� I (>fiIll','',� \ ;.1 i\ • 3.. ,�•�� , \t lo'' `` ` 1i / 1 ', 1, S S '• , ' � \\..a - ' .k •, 1 , \ .!:;: • ' tl' i `. \ I !. ('�" �, b[, .��'. r•1 �\ : �';I i / ' J I` _ yam.. jif . ,f, I py , � } I' v i. (I/, )I!�II!I ' �-»w-_'�;��\\ • 1' 'L1�' t;\ l �'�i•�, ' -=� - --� ' \ •�} j '�� \,Y Vkt �I : ' " it `\ �, i T`.:d��.�r'],�t.i.}L'9"•• ,,, �g \ , f `f SAN JOAOUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRI001 Vegetation & Sensitive Species LEGEND ❑ NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND ` COASTAL SAGE SCRUB l MULEFAT SCRUB vi u. SOUTHERN WILLOW WOODLAND MANY -STEMMED DUDLEYA ORANGE COUNTY TURKISH RUGGING e7�.8\ 4 �\ DEVELOPED e FRESH WATER MARSH/OPEN WATER \`.I ❑ CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SIGHTINGS \ e COAST HORNED LIZARD SIGHTI NGS ]� SAN DIEGO CACTUS WREN SIGHTINGS FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES • figure:3.2-1 165 660 ® THE KEIT© COMPANIES 0 330 990 I ' Raptors use the non-native grasslands for foraging. A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel ( alto sparverius) were observed several times during the surveys. Other raptors that may occur over the study area in winter, during migration, or as visitors from other areas, may include the red -shouldered hawk Buteo lin , Cooper's and sharp - shinned hawks i i r coopgrii and A. striatus), northern harrier (Circus gyaneus), black - shouldered kite (Elanus cam leus), and turkey vulture t(Ca hartes lur . Signs of California ground squirrels (SoermWhilus beech and coyote (Canis latrans) were observed in the grassland areas. Other mammals that may occur in this habitat as visitors from adjacent shrub habitat include the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatis), brush mouse (peromyscus bovlii), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontonys megallotis), Pacific kangaroo rat (D� omvs ili , and desert cottontail (Sy-lvilagus audubonii . A number of bat species, including the Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), small -footed myotis ftotis 1 i ii , and ' California myotis CMvotis californicus), may forage over the grassland areas. Coastal Sage Scrub Vegetation Coastal sage scrub vegetation of the study area is generally confined to rocky hillsides and ' steeper slopes that are less accessible to discing or grazing. Composition of this community varies among locations in the study area. The small hill near the current terminus of Ford Road supports a relatively dense shrub cover dominated by coastal sagebrush Artemisia californica), including California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California bush sunflower (Encelia californi . The rocky ridges and slopes that run north of this hill support a more open vegetation comprised of the same dominants along with a greater variety of ' constituent species, such as coastal prickly pear unti littorali and coast cholla (Qpund prolifera), and several species of Dudleva. The chalk dudleya u(D dla pulverulenta) within the study area is notable for its number and size, with some individuals of this typically low - growing species within the study area possessing unusually long stems up to two feet long. Several small patches of coastal sage scrub occur in the non-native grassland vegetation. These patches generally consist of a few individuals of California buckwheat and coastal sagebrush with a dense cover of non-native annuals. Wildlife Coastal sage scrub typically supports a similar diversity of amphibian species to that of non- native grasslands. Species expected to occur in this community include the Pacific slender salamander and western toad. The population levels of amphibians in the coastal sage scrub I9843-RR 11608-X 3-18 are expected to be slightly higher compared to those in non-native grasslands because of the increased cover opportunities available. The coastal sage scrub habitat in the study area is expected to support a more diverse reptile community than the non-native grasslands. Reptiles expected to occur in the coastal sage scrub include the western fence lizard, side -blotched lizard, western skink, western whiptail, southern alligator lizard, striped racer (Masticophis jate1alis , gopher snake, and western rattlesnake. Typical resident bird species of coastal sage scrub observed in the study area include California quail Qllipspia californi, mourning dove, Anna's hummingbird (,Qalypte wW, scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), bushtit minimus), Bewick's wren CLhWmanes hcwjG)tii), cactus wren (Capylorh3mchus bruneiWillus), California gnatcatcher Cmioptila californica catifornica), wrentit (-Chamae fasciata), California thrasher (Toxostoma rediyjyjW, orange -crowned warbler (Vermivora celata), rufous -sided towhee (yjpilo erythropthatamus), California towhee (Pipilo criuWh), and rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimobila ruff= . Migrants and seasonal visitors to the coastal sage scrub include rufous and Allen's hummingbirds (Sela-4Ahorus bus and S. sasW, western kingbird Qynus Yerficajig), Say's phoebe (Sayornis save), Swainson's thrush (Catharus ystuiW, blue -gray gnatcatcher (T4iloiitilagamU, yellow-rumped warbler Undroica coronata), black -headed grosbeak (Pheuciicus melanocenhalusl, and northern oriole (jgterus ZWbIW. Mammals observed in this plant community within the study area include brush rabbit, California ground squirrel, and coyote. Others expected to occur include the California pocket mouse (Perggpathus califoMJ", Pacific kangaroo rat, western harvest mouse, California mouse ( era yseus c ta_i&m gal, deer mouse, brush mouse, and dusky -footed woodrat (neotom fusci2c . The bobcat Wolis =W, and long-tailed weasel (Mstela ftenat;t) may also use the coastal sage scrub for foraging and cover. Bats expected to forage over this habitat include the small -footed myotis, California myotis, and big brown bat bus fumm. Vegetatlon Riparian and wetland communities within the study area include approximately 21.8 acres of southern willow scrub, 3.1 acres of mulefat scrub, and 3.4 acres of freshwater marsh. Bonita Reservoir and the creek that feeds into the reservoir from the south, support dense southern willow scrub. This community is dominated by mature arroyo and golden willows (SaIll lasiolepis and Jalix lasiaWjW. The dense growth of willows permits little understory vegetation, except around the periphery of the community where mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) 9943-)M-11"X 3.19 I I and giant creek nettle (urtica AiQw occur. Mulefat scrub occurs in the debris basin fed by Coyote Creek on the eastern part of the study area and along scattered intermittent channels on the study area. This community consists of nearly pure stands of mulefat with a sparse understory of non-native, annual grasses and forbs. The tributary of Bonita Creek on the western part of the study area supports patches of willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and sparsely vegetated areas with flowing water. The freshwater marsh vegetation consist primarily of dense stands of cattails 04pha sp.), and occurs in slow - flowing areas of the creek and in the pond below Bonita Reservoir. Wildlife In addition to the amphibians expected to occur in the other habitats within the study area, the riparian/wetland habitats may support the Pacific treefrog (ivla regill and bullfrog (Rana cat,esbiana). During the surveys, a California treefrog Qy-la cadaverin was observed in the willows near the east end of the study area. This is an unusual sighting because this species is usually associated with rocky streams and creeks. Reptiles that may occur in the study area due to the presence of semi -permanent water flows include the ringneck snake (Diadophis 12unctati ), two -striped garter snake (,Thamnophis hammondi), western pond turtle (OgmmyE marmorata), and common kingsnake Umnrooeltis getulus). Other species associated with drier habitats, such as coastal sage scrub and grasslands, may occasionally visit wetland areas. Seasonal bird species in the riparian habitat within the study area include the red -breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus Tuber), western wood pee -wee (Contwus sordidulus, Hammond's flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii), Pacific -slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), ash - throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinarescens), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus , warbling vireo V'r ilv , Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla), yellow-rumped warbler, black - throated gray warbler Qendroi ni r n , Townsend's warbler nri occidentalis), Wilson's warbler OKilsonia uusillus), and hooded oriole acterus c cullatu . Several of these birds were observed during the surveys. Resident birds in riparian habitats in the study area include the great horned owl Bu o vir ini n c), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii , black phoebe (SU-Qmis ni ri, song sparrow (MeloWiza m 1 i , and house finch. During the nesting season, these species are joined by birds which regularly breed in the region such as the black -chinned hummingbird, phainopepla (Phainooeola ni n ), yellow -breasted chat teria viren , blue grosbeack (Guiraca caerulea), and northern oriole. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-20 Mammal species expected to occur in this habitat within the study area include the western harvest mouse, deer mouse, dusky -footed woodrat, striped skunk (igvitis n1cphiu, raccoon (Procyon JQW, and Virginia opossum (DidelRbis virpinian . Bat species expected to forage in the riparian and wetland areas include the long-eared myotis (9yotis evotisl, big brown bat, western pipistrelle (Pigistrellus hL%mnW, and possibly the red bat Usiucus 124LQU. Mammals normally occurring in drier habitats, including most of the species discussed earlier, will use riparian areas as a water source and for cover. BIOLOGICAL Following is a discussion of sensitive resources of the study area based on the following sources for determination: o Plants -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1990), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1990), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1991), and California Native Plant Society (CLAPS -- Smith and Berg 1988); o Wildlife -- California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database System (CWHRDS 1991), USFWS (1990), CDFG (1990), CNDDB (1991), Williams (1986), and Remsen (1978); o Habitats -- CNDDB (1991). Table 3.2-1 provides a list of the sensitive plants and wildlife present or potentially occurring within the study area. No state or federally -listed endangered or threatened plant species are known to occur within the study area. However, two plants that are federal Category 2 candidates for listing were observed in the study area. Another plant listed by the California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) as a List 2 species may occur within the study area but was not observed during the surveys. The CNPS listing definition is included in the sensitive species table (Table 3.2-1). The numbers and habitat requirements of the sensitive plant species are described below. The many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleva multicauiiis a low -growing perennial that blooms from May through June. This plant is listed by the USFWS as a Category 2 candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered, but conclusive data to support a listing are not currently in the possession of the USFWS. The CNPS includes this species on its List 1B, indicating that the species is considered raze, threatened, or endangered by CDFG standards (Section 1901 of the Fish and Game Code). 9613.1PR-1M6 X 3.21 I Directed surveys for the many -stemmed dudleya were conducted on May 23, 1991. Approximately 2,580 individual plants were observed in 14 subpopulations southeast of Bonita Reservoir. The observed plants are located primarily on rocky outcrops among coastal sage scrub and also on clay soil at the interface of non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats in the study area. The Orange County Turkish Tugging (Chorizanthe staticoid ssp. chrysacantha) is an annual species found only in coastal Orange and San Diego counties. It is currently listed by the USFWS as a Category 2 candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered and a CNPS List 1B species. It occurs in open areas of coastal sage scrub and is often found in association with the many -stemmed dudleya where their ranges overlap. Directed surveys for the Orange County Turkish rugging were conducted on May 23, 1991. Several thousand individual plants were observed in two subpopulations northwest of Bonita Reservoir. The Palmer's grappling -hook (Harpagonella nalmeri var. palmeri is a small annual plant found primarily on clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and valley and foothill grassland from Los Angeles County south into Mexico and east into Arizona. This species currently has no state or federal status, but it is listed by the CNPS as a List 2 species. Potential habitat for the species occur in the study area, particularly in those areas that support the many -stemmed dudleya. However, no Palmer's grappling -hook was observed within the study area during the on -site surveys. Sensitive Wildlife No state or federally -listed endangered or threatened species was observed within the Ford Road study area during field surveys conducted by MBA. A total of 13 sensitive wildlife species have been observed or may occur in the study area. These species and their habitat requirements are described below and are summarized in the sensitive species table (Table 3.2- 1). The arroyo toad Bufo microscaphus californicus), a subspecies of the southwestern toad, is a federal Category 2 candidate subspecies for listing as threatened or endangered. This species is also a CDFG Species of Special Concern. The arroyo toad is being considered for species status as Bufo californicus (John Wright pers. comm.). No arroyo toad were observed in the study area during biological surveys. However, suitable habitat for the arroyo toad occurs in Bonita Reservoir. The western spadefoot toad (Scanhionus hammondi), a CDFG Species of Special Concern, historically occurred in vernal pools throughout lowland Southern California. Though not observed during surveys, the western spadefoot toad may utilize the riparian areas of the study area as breeding habitat, and may be present in the grassland and coastal sage scrub. 9843-1PR-11608-X 3-22 II The San Diego horned lizard coronatum b1gny1W is a federal Category 2 candidate for listing as endangered or threatened and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. No individuals of this species were observed during surveys, though suitable habitat exists within the study area and several harvester ant mounds were located. Horned lizard scats were found during directed surveys (see Figure 3.2-1) and it is likely that the species occurs in suitable coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat. The orange -throated whiptall (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus wing) is also a federal Category 2 candidate and CDFG Species of Special Concern. No whiptails, nor whiptail scat were located during focused surveys for this species. However, the study area is within the historical range of this lizard and contains suitable habitat. Its habitat requirements are similar to those of the San Diego horned lizard. The southwestern pond turtle (C1emmyg marmora3 pallid g2J is a federal Category 1 candidate found in marshes, rivers, streams, and ponds. The pond turtle was not observed during surveys within the study area, and no suitable habitat exists in this area for this species. However, is known to occur below Bonita Canyon Reservoir and was observed as recently as June 12, 1990 (LSA 1990). The black -shouldered kite (Elanyg leucurus) is a state fully -protected bird species, a designation established prior to the adoption of the state and Federal Endangered Species Acts that protect species from harassment or harm (take). No kite was observed during surveys of the study area. Two juvenile kites were previously observed at Bonita Reservoir on July 1, 1990, and a single bird was observed in the same area on July 11, 1990 (LSA 1990). It is likely that black -shouldered kites use the grasslands in the area as foraging habitat. Nesting may occur in the willow woodland in Bonita Reservoir or elsewhere in the vicinity. The Cooper's hawk (Accjpiis a CDFG Species of Special Concern, Although Cooper's hawk was not observed during surveys, it has been recorded near the study area LSA (1990) in July, 1990. It is unlikely that the Cooper's hawk nests in the project study area, but it is likely to forage in the area in winter, or, as a migrant, in spring and fall. The willow flycatcher (EmRidonax trailliil is a state -listed endangered species. No willow flycatcher was observed during surveys. This species is a late migrant, usually not arriving in Southern California until late May (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Singing male willow flycatchers were observed at Bonita Reservoir by LSA (1990) on May 29 and 30, 1990. 9943.21-11W84 343 The San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus bruneicapillus sandieeensisl is a Federal Category 2 candidate species and is included in the CNDDB Special Animals list (CNDDB 1990). Although it has no official state status, it is considered sensitive by the State due to its restricted distribution, and threats to its habitat. The USFWS considers all of the coastal populations (inland from Orange County, and south from Ventura County) as sensitive, and is reviewing a petition to list this population as endangered or threatened. A decision regarding whether or not to publish a proposed rule for listing was due September 21, 1991, but the decision has been postponed pending further research by USFWS. Several cactus wrens were observed in the vicinity of Bonita Reservoir, in cactus -dominated coastal sage scrub on a knoll to the southwest (Figure 3.2-1). The California gnatcatcher I(Po ioptila californicacalifornic is currently a proposed species for federal listing and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. On September 5, 1991, the USFWS proposed listing the gnatcatcher under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The USFWS has up to one year from this date within which to make a decision on the listing. Both the CDFG and the USFWS have the authority to emergency list the California gnatcatcher as threatened or endangered at any time if circumstances warrant. During surveys of the study area, eight gnatcatchers were located by sight or by their vocalizations. Among these eight, two pairs were observed engaging in nesting activities. One of these pairs, in the eastern portion of the study area, was accompanied by two juvenile gnatcatchers. The other two birds were solo males that may have had mates that were not observed. Considering the limited acreage of suitable habitat for this species within the study area, the existence of up to four pairs of California gnatcatchers is unusual. The relatively small sizes of the suitable habitat areas in the study area may indicate that, among other factors, the quality of the coastal sage scrub habitat in this area for gnatcatchers is high. The least Bell's vireo oLrgg hdffi p ius llusl is a state and federally -listed endangered species. No least Bell's vireo was observed during the current surveys. LSA (1990) reported one singing male at Bonita Reservoir on May 16, 1990, but it was not observed in subsequent surveys that year (LSA 1990). In May 1991, a nesting pair was identified. LSA is continuing to monitor the area for other least Bell's vireos. The habitat within Bonita Reservoir appears suitable for the vireo and it is possible that the species will continue to nest in the area. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-24 The yellow -breasted chat Qalcria ylt a is a CDFG Species of Special Concern. Though not observed in current surveys, yellow breasted chats were observed on several occasions in Bonita Reservoir by LSA (1990) between May and July, 1990. The species may occur in the riparian areas in the study area. The yellow warbler QD,gpdroi 2atechla) is a CDFG Species of Special Concern. One yellow warbler was observed in the narrow willow woodland leading into Bonita Reservoir at the east end of the study area. They were observed several times during directed surveys by LSA (1990) in Bonita Reservoir in late May, 1990. The willow woodlands associated with Bonita Reservoir may support this species. The Palmer's grappling -hook abusundla )loll var. gWmeri is a small annual plant found primarily on clay soils in chaprral, coastal sage scrub, and valley and foothill grassland from Los Angeles County south into Mexico and east to Arizona. The species currently has no state or federal status, but it is listed by the CNPS as a List 2 species, a designation indicating that, although the species is not threatened outside of California, it meets the CDFG criteria for rare, threatened, or endangered status. No Palmer's grappling -hook was observed within the study area and during the oniste surveys. However, because it is a very small, short-lived annual that quickly disarticulates, the plant can be easily overlooked without intensive, focused surveys during its flowering period. Potential habitat for the species occur in the study area, particularly in those areas that support the many -stemmed dudleya. TABLE 3.2-1 SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT STUD' AREA OR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA r Chorizanthe gas C2 -- List 1 Observed in study area, ssp. chlysacantha Orange County Turkish rugging Dudleva multicaulis C2 -- List 1 Observed in study area. many -stemmed dudleya Haiilagonella jlalmeri var. — List 2 Not observed in study RWmeri area. Suitable habitat Palmer's grappling -hook present. 91/3JM 11606•X 3.25 M&Q miscroscanhus C2 SSC -- Not observed in study californicus area. Suitable habitat arroyo toad present adjacent to study area. PhZmosoma coronatum C2 SSC -- Scat observed in blainvillei study area. Suitable San Diego horned lizard habitat present. Cnemidophorus C2 SSC — Not observed in study hypgyythrus area. Suitable habitat orange -throated whiptail present. Clemmys marmorata aln Lida C1 -- -- Not observed in study southwestern pond turtle area. Suitable habitat present adjacent to study area. Scanhionus h mm n i -- SSC -- Not observed in study western spadefoot toad area. Suitable habitat present. Elanus leucurus Fully Protected Not observed in study black -shouldered kite area. Foraging habitat present. Accipi r cooMri -- SSC -- Not observed in study Cooper's hawk area. Foraging habitat present. EmRidonax tmM -- SE -- Not observed in study willow flycatcher area. Known to occur within Bonita Reservoir along the northern study area boundary. Camnvlorhynchus n i- — SSC -- Observed in study area. olDillus sandiegensis Suitable nesting and San Diego cactus wren foraging habitat present. Polioptilacaliforni FP SSC -- Observed in study area. californi Suitable nesting California gnatcatcher and foraging habitat present. 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-26 Yi= bow 12u8i1 M FE SE — Not observed in study least Bell's vireo area. Known to occur within Bonita Reservoir along the northern study area boundary. lacdS Yirm -- SSC -- Not observed in study yellow -breasted chat area. Known to occur within Bonita Reservoir along the northern study area boundary. DendroiRgtechi3 -- SSC -- Observed at east end of yellow warbler study area. Expected within Bonita Reservoir along the northern study area boundary, LMGEND: USFWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CDFG--California Department of Fish and Game CNPS--California Native Plant Society FE Federally endangered; taxon threatened with extinction throughout all or significant portions of its range, FP Federally proposed; taxon that have been proposed by the USFWS for federal listing as threatened or endangered. SE State endangered; prospects of survival and reproduction for the taxon are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes. ST State threatened; taxon likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if current threats to biological viability are allowed to continue without controls. Cl A Category 1 candidate species for federal listing as threatened or endangered; includes taxa being considered for listing for which substantial information exists to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. C2 A Category 2 candidate species for federal listing as threatened or endangered includes taxa being considered for listing but for which insufficient data are available to support a listing at this time. 9/43-)Plt•11606-X 3.27 List 1 Considered by the CNPS as a rare and endangered species or extremely rare, endangered, or threatened subspecies. List 2 Considered rare by the CNPS because threatened or endangered in California (but more common elsewhere). SSC Species considered to be facing extirpation within the state of California and included on the State Species of Special Concern list, but which has not been placed on state or federal endangered or threatened lists. Fully Protected A designation adopted by the state prior to creation of the state endangered species act; protects from harassment or harm any species considered rare or threatened. 3.2.2 IMPACTS Significant adverse impacts on biological resources posed by the proposed extension of Ford Road were determined from criteria stated in the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (OPR 1986). Appendix G of these guidelines states that a project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it will: (1) substantially affect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the habitat of such species; (2) interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; of (3) substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines also states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when a project has the potential to "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." Although the Ford Road Extension will directly remove a linear strip of habitat through the study area, it is likely that habitat directly adjacent to the proposed grading area will be adversely affected as a result of construction activities and habitat degradation as a result of vehicle use of the road. For this analysis, it is assumed that the area to be disturbed by the construction of either of the two alignment alternatives and the access road will include all habitat within 100 feet on either side of the centerline the centerline of both alignment alternatives, the access road alternatives, and the direct and indirect connector alternatives (Figure 3.2-1). The acreages of affected habitat are provided for each alternative alignment, access road, and connector in Table 3.2-2. 9943-IPR-11608-X 3-28 TABLE 3.2-2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ALTERNATIVES (Acres Impacted) ibbital FORD ROAD (with connectors) B(1) Coyote Canyon Rd. B(1l) C-3 C-5 A(D) A(1) A(Il) B(D) Coastal Sage Scrub 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 -- - Non -Native Grassland 36.2 33.3 30,9 31.5 30.4 28.7 18.2 24.2 Mulefat Scrub --- --- -- --- --- — 3.8 3.8 Willow Riparian 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 --- --- Marsh 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 -- --- In addition to direct removal of habitat, secondary impacts will also occur on the remaining vegetation after project completion. The process of transporting, grading, and compacting fill material will have an impact on current open space areas within the project study area and adjacent areas. Heavy equipment will cause soil compaction, and turnaround maneuvers by earthmoving equipment will disrupt soils and vegetation beyond the construction area. The area of vegetation beyond the 200 foot wide band assumed in the table above which may be affected by these activities cannot be quantified at this time. Disturbed and compacted soils are subject to greater erosion potential, unless properly graded and revegetated. In addition, degradation of adjacent habitats provides the opportunity for the invasion of non-native weedy plant species resulting in decreased native plant diversity and increased competition from non- native plants for available resources. Non-native Grassland As shown in Table 3.2 2, implementation of A(D) would affect the greatest area of non-native grasslands, and implementation of B(Il) would affect the least area. The loss of non-native grassland habitat as a result of the implementation of any of the alignment alternatives and connectors will not result in the loss of any sensitive plant or animal populations, or substantially affect sensitive plant or animal species. Therefore, this loss of non-native grassland is not considered a significant adverse impact on the biological resources of the study area. 9943-IM-11606 X 3-29 1 Coastal Sage Scrub Approximately 2.0 acres of this habitat will be removed or adversely affected as a result of implementation of Alternative A(D), AM or A(I1). Implementation of Alternatives B(D), B(I) or B(Il) will result in the loss of approximately 0.8 acre of coastal sage scrub. Because of the sensitivity of this habitat in the Southern California region and because it supports California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and sensitive plant species on the Ford Road project study area, any loss of coastal sage scrub habitat within the study area is considered a significant impact. However, it should be noted that due to the location of coastal sage scrub between the terminus of existing Ford Road and Bonita Reservoir, there are no "build" alternatives capable of eliminating impacts to coastal sage scrub. This includes the A and B alignments and "no project" alternative evaluated in Section 5.1. The B alignment alternatives, with any of the connectors, would minimize impacts to coastal sage scrub. Riparian Habitat Mulefat scrub, willow riparian, and marshes are included within the riparian habitat summary. Table 3.2-1 indicates that alternative A(D) includes more a loss of this habitat, while alternatives B(I) and B(Il) minimize such impacts. Because of the sensitive nature of riparian and marsh areas in this region, and the decline of this habitat in California, any substantial loss of wetland resources would be considered a significant adverse impact. Project design avoids most of the wetland and riparian areas within the study area by bridging channels and streams, and circumventing Bonita Reservoir. Direct removal of riparian and wetland habitat from any of the A or B alternatives is not expected to exceed one acre. Because project design avoids most of the riparian and wetland habitat is the study area, and because habitat that will be removed is expected to be minimal and will not directly affect any sensitive plant or wildlife species, impacts on this habitat are not considered significant adverse impacts. However, bridge support structures and erosion as a result of construction activity will likely remove some riparian vegetation and may cause some siltation in the creek channels. Any alteration of streambeds or its associated vegetation will require an agreement with CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. In addition, any dredging or filling of wetland areas may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. 9843-IPA-11608-X 3-30 Wildlife Effects on general wildlife species are approximately the some for each alternative of the Ford Road extension. Construction would result in the loss of some of the native populations within the study area, especially those with high area -sensitivity (requiring large areas of intact habitat). Fragmentation of the habitat, as a result of implementation of any of the project alternative combinations, and the isolation of remaining patches of habitat from open space to the north and southeast, will diminish the ability of the project study area to support self- sustaining native wildlife populations. Implementation of any combination of alternatives will diminish habitat for non -sensitive, wildlife species within the project study area. Specific impacts on wildlife for any of the alignment alternatives [A(D), A(n, A(Il), B(D) B(I), or B(I1)] include the following: o Construction activity will disturb most wildlife populations within the project study area. Some populations could be expected to colonize adjacent areas of similar habitat, provided it is available at the onset of activity. o Replacement of existing vegetation with ornamental landscaping will eliminate natural communities within the study area and result in a reduction in study area wildlife species diversity. The replacement of existing habitat with non-native landscaping would result in the elimination of native wildlife populations from the developed portions of the study area. indirectly, wildlife populations in surrounding area would be adversely affected by the loss of available habitat within the project study area. Resident wildlife displaced by project implementation and human disturbance may move into areas of similar habitat in undeveloped areas adjacent to the project. These emigrations may result in increased stress upon nearby wildlife populations as competition for food, water, and nesting sites increases. o Development of Ford Road and its connectors is expected to create localized barriers to the movement of larger mammals such as coyote and bobcat. These barriers would isolate or limit access to previously available resources, further affecting existing wildlife populations. Project design, however, will preserve the primary wildlife movement corridor along Bonita Creek, and no significant adverse impact is anticipated. 9843-JPa-IJW6-X 3.31 II II i o Although some raptors, particularly red-tailed hawks and American kestrels, will adapt to the activities of humans in and adjacent to their preferred habitats, construction activities could exert a temporary adverse impact upon raptors presently using the study area. The loss of non-native grassland areas as a result of project implementation represents an incremental loss of foraging habitat for raptors. o Night lighting may be beneficial for insectivorous wildlife species such as bats, because it attracts and concentrates large numbers of insects on which these species feed. However, the negative effects of night lighting and associated human activities on other wildlife populations exceed the possible beneficial effects. Night lighting is detrimental to animals in adjacent habitats because of disruption of light -dark daily rhythms and reduction in the ability of nocturnal species to avoid predators. Sensitive Biological Resources Plants Alternatives A(D), A(I), or A(Il) will result in the direct loss, or adverse effect on approximately 100 - 300 of .the many -stemmed dudleya plants. Because a substantial dudleya population will still be retained within the study area this loss is not considered a significant adverse impact. No direct or significant impacts to Orange County Turkish Rugging and Palmers Grappling -hook will occur. No impacts to many -stemmed dudleya or other sensitive plant species are expected to occur as a result of implementation of any of the B alignment project alternatives [(B(D), B(1), or B(11)]. Wildlife San Diego Homed Lizard Implementation of Alternatives A(D), A(I), A(Il) will result in the loss of approximately 35.0 acres of suitable habitat (non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub) for the San Diego homed lizard within the study area, whereas implementation of Alternatives B(D), B(l), or B(II) would result in the loss of 32.0 acres of suitable habitat. Because implementation of these alternatives are not expected to extirpate populations of the species from the study area and are not expected to substantially reduce the number of these lizards within the study area, the loss of 32.0 to 35.0 acres of habitat is not considered a significant adverse impact. 9843-IPR-11608-X 3-32 Ii No orange -throated whiptaii lizards were observed within the study area but suitable habitat for this species is present. If whiptails are present within the project study area, their numbers are likely to be low since they were not observed on several visits to the study area. The study area likely does not support a substantial population of this species. Therefore, implementation of any alternative is not expected to substantially affect whiptail populations that may be present within the study area. None of these amphibian species was observed within the study area during biological surveys. Suitable habitat for the arroyo toad and the southwestern pond turtle occurs in the Bonita Reservoir area along the northern portion of the project study area. Suitable habitat for the western spadefoot toad occurs in the coastal sage scrub and riparian areas of the study area. No southwestern pond turtle habitat will be lost from project implementation, With Alternatives A(D), A(l), or A(11), approximately 3.0 acres of spadefoot toad habitat, and 0.5 acre of arroyo toad habitat, will be removed. Approximately 1.5 acres of spadefoot toad habitat, and 0.2 acre of arroyo toad habitat will be removed as a result of implementation of Alternative B(D), B(I), or B(11). Because of the relatively small amounts of habitat to be removed under any of these alternatives, the loss of habitat -for these species is not considered a adverse impact. Although the coastal race of the cactus wren has no official listing status, it is currently being reviewed for a proposal for federal listing as endangered or threatened. As the habitat for this species is limited within the study area, and very few individuals were observed, the loss of cactus wren habitat within the study area through implementation of any project alternative would not be a significant impact. However, if the USFWS lists the cactus wren before, or during, any phase of construction, any activity that will result in the removal of cactus wren habitat will be required to comply with Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Section 9 prohibits the destruction of either individuals or the habitat of listed threatened or endangered species. A habitat conservation plan and Section 10(a) permit, or other permitting activity, would then be required in order to "take" cactus wrens or their habitat. 9813-IPa-116MX 3.33 Implementation of Alternatives A(D), A(I) or A(Il) would directly remove habitat occupied by two pairs of gnatcatchers. The largest patches of occupied California gnatcatcher habitat are located in the northern portion of the study area and would .be mostly avoided by implementation of Alternatives B(D), B(I) or B(11). However, habitat for one pair of gnatcatchers that produced at least,two fledglings in 1991 would be lost by construction of any one of these B alternatives. In addition, these alternatives would diminish the quality of habitat for other gnatcatchers within the study area. Because of the current sensitivity of this species, the loss or disturbance of habitat supporting California gnatcatchers is considered a significant impact. This finding is based upon: (1) continuing threats to remaining coastal sage scrub habitat in the region; (2) the existence of these gnatcatchers near the periphery of their current distribution contiguous with other populations; and, (3) uncertainty as to the gnatcatchers federal status. The California gnatcatcher was recently denied state proposed status for listing as endangered or threatened. It was proposed for federal listing on September 5, 1991, and a decision is expected to be made within one year of this date. Because the California gnatcatcher is not currently listed as federally threatened or endangered, no legal protection under the federal Endangered Species Act exists for this species. However, if the California gnatcatcher becomes federally listed during any phase of the development of the Ford Road project, any activity resulting in the removal of gnatcatcher'habitat will be required to comply with Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act. A Section 10(a) permit, or similar permitting activity, will then be required in order to "take" California gnatcatchers or their habitat. A habitat conservation plan (HCP), which stipulates measures and actions to mitigate the loss of gnatcatchers and gnatcatcher habitat, would also be required if the species becomes listed and occupied habitat is removed. A multispecies approach to habitat conservation planning, known as the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, is being pursued cooperatively by the State Resources Agency, CDFG, local agencies and landowners. This program, more fully described in following Section 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures (coastal sage scrub), would supersede individual species mitigation requirements if the Ford Road project study area were to be enrolled in an NCCP planning area and if the gnatcatcher is not state or federally listed. In addition, the Ford Road project study area has been included in extensive regional open space planning with respect to the City of Irvine General Plan. Overall impacts on gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub habitat need to be considered with respect to these planning efforts. 9843-]PR-11608-X 3-34 F Least Bell's vireo Implementation of any alignment and its associated connectors is not expected to result in the ' direct loss of least Bell's vireo habitat. however, construction noise and related activities , during the breeding season of this species may cause any nesting pairs in the Bonita Canyon Reservoir area to abandon nest sites. Activities which produce essentially continuous noise levels above 60 Leq within vireo habitat areas may affect the suitability of such areas for use 123'12, by least Bell's vireos for nesting.9 Construction and project -related activities that would result in nest abandonment would be considered a significant impact, and be in possible violation of Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the California , Endangered Species Act, both of which prohibit "take" of a listed species. In addition, once Ford is completed, traffic -related noise on the northeastern portion of the road, human intrusion (including pets) into the Bonita Reservoir area, and general habitat degradation ' resulting from disruption of surrounding habitat buffers may adversely affect nesting least Bell's vireos, causing possible nest abandonment or nest failure. The effects of noise on wildlife are generally categorized as follows: hearing impairment, , communication masking, non -auditory physiological effects, and behavioral modifications. The results of these effects may include loss of habitat and territory, loss of food supply, behavioral changes that modify mating, predation and migration, and changes in interspecific relationships ' (i.e., predator/prey relationships and relationships regarding competition of food and shelter). Noise impacts on wildlife are highly dependent on seasonal conditions, species population densities, stages of life, and the characteristics of the noise. ' Short term noise would result from grading and filling activities during construction. This would 2$'12, potentially cause some wildlife to temporarily avoid the construction area. Long term noise would disturb wildlife to varying degrees depending on the species. A noise study conducted in the Lake Tahoe area showed that noise exceeding 75 dBA at 100 feet caused a negative reaction ' in wildlife, and that animals most affected include deer, bobcat, coyote and skunk. By comparison, the 75 dBA for a realigned Ford Road is generally estimated to fail within or very near the construction right-of-way for much of the route length, so that noise effects on wildlife in the Ford Road area would be largely indiscernible from the wildlife effects noted previously, including direct loss or fragmentation of habitat, barriers to wildlife movement, human disturbances and activity, and SJHTC traffic noise. , 9.RECON.1969. Comora tel wye Species Mana_nment Men forth* Lent Beil'a Vireo! Prepared for San Diego Anocielion of Oovenunmb, ' San Diego, CA 226 pp. 9643411-11608X I I Project designs for Ford Road and SJTC will incorporate sound walls to reduce noise levels in local communities and on the Bonita Canyon Reservoir area. After indementation of the sound wall, noise levels on Least Bell's vireo habitat are expected to be less than 60 Leq. Therefore, traffic noise impacts are not expected to represent a significant adverse impact to the vireo. 123 _ 12 Noise as a result of construction activities, however may exceed 60 Leq because of the lack of a sound wall or adequate buffer. Noise levels at the edge of occupied vireo habitat that exceed 123'�2 60 Leq would be considered a significant adverse impact of the project. Black -shouldered Kite. Coopgr's Hawk ' Implementation of any of the alignment alternatives will result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for these raptor species. However, substantial amounts of suitable foraging habitat exists in the project vicinity for these species. Because project implementation will not result in the loss of active nest sites or nesting habitat, no significant impacts are expected to occur on these raptors. ' Willow Flycatcher. Yellow -breasted Chat, Yellow Warbler ' No loss of foraging or nesting habitat for these bird species is expected to occur as a result of implementation of any project alternative. Neither the yellow -breasted chat nor the yellow warbler is expected to nest in the riparian habitat associated with Bonita Canyon Reservoir or elsewhere on the project study area. While suitable nesting habitat for the state -listed endangered willow flycatcher occurs in the willow woodlands associated with Bonita Canyon Reservoir, few records of nesting pairs of this species exist in this portion of Orange County. ' However, in the event a pair of willow flycatchers is found to be nesting in the reservoir area, any construction or project -related activities that would result in nest abandonment would be considered a significant impact, and in possible violation of Section 2081 of the California ' Endangered Species Act. COYOTE CANYON ACCESS Proposed Coyote Canyon Road access will result in the loss of approximately 18.2 (C-3) to 24.2 (C-5) acres of non-native grassland habitat and 3.8 acres of mulefat scrub riparian ' habitat. The loss of non-native grassland is considered an adverse, though not significant impact. The loss of mulefat scrub riparian habitat may require an agreement with CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code and permitting from the U.S. Army ' Corps. of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 11 I ' 9843-IPR 11608 X 3-36 Impacts on non -sensitive wildlife species as a result of implementation of Coyote Canyon access road alternatives will be similar to those described under Alternatives A and B, though at a reduced scale due to the lesser amount of habitat to be removed. The C-5 alternative will impact approximately one acre of the Pelican Hills Mitigation Area. This is considered a significant adverse impact. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. No significant impacts on sensitive plant or wildlife species is expected to occur as a result of implementation of Coyote Canyon Road access. INDIRECT IMPACTS Indirect impacts include increased traffic noise, human intrusion into the habitat (including pets), litter, pollutants, dust, oil, and other debris and human activities associated with the use of the completed Ford Road and its connectors. These indirect impacts are likely to degrade the vegetation communities adjacent to the roads. Wildlife populations inhabitating these areas are likely to emigrate to less disturbed areas, if possible, for food and territory. Individuals of low mobility, such as rodents and reptiles, may be eliminated outright by vehicle collisions. In addition, siltation of downstream riparian areas may result from urban erosion at riparian - road crossing locations, CUMULATIVE I WACTS Project implementation will result in the removal of coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat. These habitats, which typically support a variety of common and sensitive wildlife species, are rapidly declining in Southern California and are considered sensitive by natural resource agencies. The loss of these plant communities on the project study area represent incremental contributions to significant cumulative losses of these resources in the region. The Ford Road extension project study area is completely bordered by residential and commercial development to the south and west, and construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the campus of UC-Irvine to the north and east. The nearest undeveloped land is located immediately north on the UC-Irvine Campus. Future plans call for this area to be further developed. Undeveloped land, is also located in the San Joaquin Hills approximately two miles to the southeast of the project study area. The City of Irvine General Plan call for much of the Ford Road study area to be developed with multi -use residential and commercial projects. Expected development of the vacant land between the extension and existing roads, and increased human access to the areas adjacent to the road extension, represents adverse cumulative impacts on the biological resources in the few remaining open space areas in the immediate vicinity of the project study area. 1 I 11 11 9643-1PR 11606-X 3.37 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS As indicated in Table 3.2-2, Alternative A(D) will affect the largest total area of habitat while Alternatives B(I) or B(Il) will impact the least area of total habitat. Impacts to coastal sage scrub are maximized by the A alignment combinations and are minimized by the B alignment combinations. Impacts to riparian/wetland areas are maximized by direct connector combinations and minimized by indirect connector combinations. Because the B alignment combinations will result in the loss of the least amount of overall natural habitat, and the least amount of sensitive habitat (i.e. coastal sage scrub and riparian/wetland areas), these alternatives are the environmentally superior alternatives with respect to impacts on biological resources. 3.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES VEGETATION Non-native Grassland Non-native grasslands, though not considered sensitive by resource agencies, are important to a variety of wildlife species, most notably as foraging habitat for raptors. In addition, the grasslands of the project study area act as a buffer for the sensitive plant communities against human intrusion. The following measures will minimize adverse impacts on this, and other, plant communities of the project study area: 6. Ongoing during construction, the project applicant shall ensure that earth -moving equipment is confined to the narrowest possible corridor and shall avoid unnecessary maneuvering in areas outside the immediate project study area. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 7. Prior to issuance of grading, temporary power or construction permits detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the lead agency identifying locations for waste dirt or rubble deposition which avoid native vegetation outside defined construction limits. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' ' 9843-MR-11608-x 3-38 1 11 8. Prior to commencement of grading and construction activities, preconstruction meetings with construction supervisors and equipment operators will be conducted as required by their contracts to ensure adherence to all recommended mitigation measures. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), 13(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). The Governer of the State of California recently initiated a program that supports a multi - species approach to habitat conservation planning. This program, known as the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP), will determine and implement a scientifically - based system of conservation areas that will be managed for their ecological values in order to protect multiple species of interest in their natural habitats. Directed by the State Resources Agency, and implemented by the CDFG, this effort is currently identifying sub -regional planning areas and guidelines for coastal sage scrub habitat in Southern California. A Scientific Review Panel has identified broad boundaries of sub -regions and existing development patterns. Landowners, local government, and state and federal resource agencies will participate in defining the sub -regional planning areas, and the extent of development to take place within these.areas during the planning process. On May 1, 1992 the San Joaquin and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Boards of Directors enrolled in the Natural Community Conservation Planning project. The SJHTC Board of Directors commitment relative to Ford Road involves cooperating with the local agencies and owners in joint coastal sage scrub habitat surveys in three study areas in central and south Orange County. The surveys will be used in a collaborative planning process that will lead to preparation of guidelines and standards required by Section 2800 r,1 M of the California Fishl and Game Code. The planning period terminates on October 31, 1992 or upon approval of an', NCCP, whichever is earlier. The Department of Fish and Game will define and pursue implementation of the NCCP/CSS program expeditiously including the formulation of process guidelines and subregions as early as possible. It is not know at this time if the Ford Road project study area will be included in an NCCP. If the study area is enrolled in a planning area, all actions affecting coastal sage scrub in this area will be mitigated pursuant to the guidelines and directives of the NCCP planning process, If the study area is not enrolled in an NCCP, impacts on coastal sage scrub will be mitigated pursuant to the California Environmentally Quality Act (CEQA). The following mitigation measures will be implemented if the Ford Road study area is not enrolled in a NCCP. 9843-JM-1160A-X 3.39 it 'I ,' 1 1- 'I 11 11 11 ri 11 9. Prior to final field inspection and approval and within 30 days of commencement of project construction, all coastal sage scrub lost as a result of project grading will be replaced such that there is not a net loss of this plant community within the project study area. Replacement will take place through revegetation. A qualified botanist or habitat restoration ecologist will be selected to supervise all coastal sage scrub revegetation. This individual will also coordinate with the USFWS to determine the replacement ratio and specific study area revegetation location. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I); B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 10. Prior to final plan approval, a project landscape plan will be developed that describes all aspects of the revegetation. Specifically, this plan will include: o Species composition for areas to be planted (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o methods and procedures for planting and irrigating (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation methods (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), 13(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, o all performance standards as agreed upon by the project botonist and pertinent resource agencies (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 11. Prior to final plan approval, the criteria for success of the coastal sage scrub replacement will be reviewed with the CDFG and USFWS, and approved by the lead agency. In order to minimize the time between the removal of occupied sage scrub habitat as a result of construction activities and the growth stage at which the revegetated plant material becomes beneficial to the gnatcatcher, the revegetation effort must begin as soon as possible or within thirty days of commencement of project construction, whichever occurs first. The criteria for gnatcatcher habitat include the following: o Vegetation dominated by coastal sagebrush, with California buckwheat and white sage as sub -dominants (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); 98434M-11608-X 340 o Vegetation on gentle slopes (not to exceed 40 percent grade) (Alignments A(D), A(n, A(11), A(12), B(D), B(n, B(II), B(12), C-30 C-5 and No Project); and, ' o Vegetation areas large enough, or contiguous with presently occurring coastal sage scrub habitat to support breeding pairs of gnatcatchers. (Alignments A(D), A(I), , A(II), A(I2), BM), B(I), B(11)0 B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities and ongoing thereafter, measures will be taken to protect the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat within the study area from construction activities associated with the project and from further degradation after the project is completed. These measures include the following: 12. Prior to commencement of any grading operations and ongoing during grading operations, all areas of coastal sage scrub to be avoided shall be protected, where feasible, with temporary fencing. Orange plastic snow fencing is recommended because of its high visibility and ease of installation. After grading operations have been completed, permanent fencing, approval by resources agencies, will be installed, where feasible, in the areas in which coastal sage scrub borders the alignment. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within the fenced areas. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Ii), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12)0 C-39 C-5 and No Project). 13. Ongoing during grading and construction activities, the coastal sage scrub vegetation within the vicinity of construction shall be sprayed with water once every twenty days to reduce dust accumulated on the leaves. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 14. Prior to final field inspection and approval and within thirty days of project construction, preserved areas of coastal sage scrub shall be buffered by native plant species from human uses by incorporating appropriate transition plantings on manufactured slopes adjacent to coastal sage scrub. The transition planting areas will limit potential impacts on occupied California gnatcatcher habitat by screening the alignment from gnatcatchers, limiting public access, and capturing excess runoff from the roadway. Native plants suitable for this transition area, and the methods for planting, will be included in the project landscape plan. These transition plantings will be supervised by a qualified botanist subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Marshal and will require periodic selective thinning for fuel modification purposes. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 11 9843-JM 11608-X 3-41 ' I 15. Ongoing for two years following planting or until the plant species become established, plantings and revegetated areas shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. Monitoring will take place monthly for the first year and quarterly for the following period. Records shall be kept on germination success, species composition, erosion, and plant mortality. Copies of these records will be filed with, and measures required to correct any problems shall be described as part of the reporting requirements of the mitigation monitoring for this project, which will be adopted in conjunction with project approval. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Ii), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Riparian Communities 16. Bridges will be included in project design at the two (2) primary drainage crossings to avoid impacts to wetlands. Prior to final field inspection and approval, impacts to wetland and riparian habitat in the project study area will be mitigated such that there will be no net loss of habitat. A minimum of a one-to-one replacement ratio shall be used in mitigating the loss of riparian or wetland habitat. Because of the proximity of the Ford Road extension study area to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor alignment, mitigation for the Ford Road project shall be coordinated with the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Wetlands Mitigation Plan (LSA 1990) for impacts on wetlands and riparian habitats to maximize efficiencies and efforts from both projects. In addition, impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation will be mitigated through consultation with CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The potential discharge of dredge or fill material into wetland and riparian areas will be mitigated through consultation with ACOE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and will require Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 certification (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(II), A(U), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 17. During the process of obtaining the required permits for encroachment into habitat areas (1601/404), the TCA will prepare a Wetlands Mitigation Plan and will coordinate with the affected resource agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Guidelines for development of a mitigation plan and site selection will include the following: o The sites selected will be evaluated for their suitability for use as riparian habitat mitigation areas. The parameters evaluated will include, but not be limited to, soil condition, hydrology (current water availability), geology and drainage preparation, designation for particular land uses, and the archaeological and historical sensitivity of the site (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, 9843-]PR-11608-X 3.42 23-I(c I o Maintenance and monitoring goals will be established that are compatible with mitigation plans that have been or are being developed for other projects in the vicinity, such as the SJHTC (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 18. Prior to final plan approval, project plans shall show realignment of the C-5 Coyote Canyon Access Road Alignment which avoids the Pelican Hills Mitigation Area (Alignment A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-5 and No Project). 19. Prior to completion of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan, TCA shall verify that the components and implementation of the wetlands mitigation plan will include the following: o A set of objectives for site selection and habitat replacement, and a set of parameters for the determination of the amount of replacement habitat, including the indirect effects of roadway noise. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Maintenance and monitoring specifications including requirements for site maintenance, terms of maintenance, frequency of monitoring, financing mechanisms, performance standards and documentation of the implementation program. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11)0 B(12), C-31 C-5 and No Project); o Design and seasonal guidelines to minimize impacts during construction; fencing plans for protection of wetland habitats not impacted by construction. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Replacement site selection guidelines. Per actual replacement ratios and acreage, site locations and habitat values will be determined throughout coordination with CDFG, USFWS, COE, and County of Orange during preparation of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12)9 C-3, C-5 and No Project); Implementation specifications, including numbers, size and spacing of vegetation; site preparation, plan propagation and planting techniques, irrigation techniques, and soil treatments. (Alignments A(D), A(i), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Site maintenance requirements and terms, weed control measures, frequency of monitoring and monitoring reports, performance standards and remedial measures. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11)2 B(12)2 C-31 C-5 and No Project); 9943•IM-116WX 343 o Maintenance of water flow to existing and established wetlands; description of water control devices. (Alignments A(D), A([), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, o Documentation of the implementation program, including financing mechanisms, routine evaluation of the mitigation by wildlife agencies, and ultimate land ownership. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(H), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 20. Prior to final plan approval design plans shall show bridges designed and constructed to span delineated wetlands at the principal drainages crossed by the projection (i.e. drainage locations 1, 2 and 7). (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), BO), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 21. The performance standards from Mitigation Measure 19 for the wetlands plantings shall be met as follows: Two years after planting, the tree canopy will be 50% or greater. The standard for tree height will be seven to nine feet for sycamore, cottonwood, black willow, red willow, and golden willow, and six feet for arroyo willow. Mean height will reach or exceed this standard in two years. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, Five years after planting, the tree canopy cover will be 90% or greater. The standard for tree height will be 13 to 15 feet for sycamore, cottonwood, red willow, arroyo willow and golden willow, and 18 feet for black willow. At least 90% of the canopy trees will reach or exceed this height in five years. Canopy trees are defined as those that contribute to the measured canopy cover. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Wildlife Resources Mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts on wildlife species include the following: 22. Revegetation shall be accomplished on all graded and cut -and -fill areas where native vegetation was removed, where soil/bedrock conditions allow, and where future improvements are not planned. These areas will be revegetated with the native vegetative plant community that they supported prior to disturbance and as approved by a qualified botanist or revegetation specialist. In order to avoid indirect impacts that can be caused by ornamental landscaping of graded areas, native plant species will be used in the revegetation program because they will be best adapted to existing soil and climate conditions. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C- 3, C-5 and No Project); and, ' 9843-JPR-11603-X 3-14 i M 3B-I�L 23. Night lighting near the alignment shall conform with City of Irvine standards, and be baffled or provided with internal silvering to direct the light away from undeveloped areas, so as to not disrupt nocturnal wildlife activity. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(% B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 24. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, final mitigation plans with regard to the many -stemmed dudleya shall be determined in conjunction with a Memorandum of Understanding between the TCA, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation options for impacts on the many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleva mWlia jg) with respect to proposed alternatives A(D), A(1) A(I1) and A(12) include off -site acquisition of lands with same species, pay fee per habitat acre or plants lost and transplantation of species (seed collections and propagation). Because of the proximity of the Ford Road study area to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, mitigation measures for the Ford Road project shall be coordinated on with the TCA Resource Management Plan (LSA 1990) for impacts on many -stemmed dudleya is encouraged to maximize efficiencies and efforts from both projects. (A(l), A(Il), A(I2) and A(D)). The salvage program for many -stemmed dudleya shall be a multi -task effort, consisting of the following tasks: Corms shall be salvaged during the fail drought season and stored at a nursery until the mitigation site is prepared. (A(l), A(Il), A(I2) and A(D)); Topsoil shall be salvaged to a depth of six inches from the surface and will be stockpiled for the shortest possible time prior to respreading to six inches depth. (A(l), A(Il), A(I2) and A(D)); Large blocks of substrate with the corms and associated flora kept in place shall be salvaged and stockpiled for the shortest possible time prior to replacement on mitigation areas. (A([), A(I1), A(I2) and A(D)); 9943-JM-11606 X 3.45 U o Restablishment will include: ' - Salvaged corms will be placed in a nursery to provide a backup seed source, in the event of initial failure to re establish species in the wild. ' (A(I), A(Il) A(I2) and A(D)); and, Dormant corms will be transplanted to appropriate locales where the species is not now present or occurs in low numbers. (A(I), A(Il), A(I2) and A(D)); ' - Transplantation and seeding sites will be created on the right-of-way. These will be in areas of rock outcroppings, where the embankment is stairstepped. This will provide flat areas for establishment populations. (A(I), A(IU), A(I2) and A(D)); - Salvaged topsoil and soilblocks with plants will be placed on the crests of the stairsteps. Topsoil area will be seeded during the rainy season with seed salvaged from preexisting populations. (A(l), A(Il), A(I2) and A(D)); ' and, East facing slopes will be selected for relocation sites. (A(I), A(I1), A(12) and A(D)). California Gnatcatcher ' 25. Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, surveys shall be conducted during winter and spring seasons to identify active nest and territory locations. ' (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 26. As part of the resource management plan for the project, the project applicant shall make efforts to maintain connections between this gnatcatcher population and those occurring on the U.C. Irvine campus and in the San Joaquin Hills. This could be taccomplished by: o Minimizing impact on areas adjacent to the Ford Road extension during ' construction by narrowing turnaround and parking areas for construction equipment. (Alignments A(D), AO), A(I1), A(U), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, ' C-5 and No Project), and ' 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-46 o During the construction -phase of development, construction activities should not be conducted during breeding (April through June) at the easterly project limits near Bonita Reservoir. If construction during this period cannot be avoided, then only construction that avoids generation of more than 65 dBA during gnatcatcher nesting and dispersal periods (April through June) shall be allowed. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), 13(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 7 a l.P. I WWI.� To minimize the potential for nest failure of least Bell's vireos nest sites as a result of implementation of the project alternatives, the following mitigation measures shall be followed: 27. Prior to commencement of grading and construction activities, the project applicant shall conduct focused surveys each spring to determine the presence of nesting least Bell's vireos in the Bonita Reservoir area. These surveys will be conducted by a qualified ornithologist and conducted according to current USFWS guidelines for least Bell's vireo surveys. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), 13(11)0 B(12), C-30 C-5 and No Project); 28. During the construction phase of development, construction activities shall not be conducted during the breeding season (April through June) at the easterly project limits near Bonita Reservoir, if active least Bell's vireo nests are present. If construction during this period cannot be avoided, then only construction that results in noise levels less than 60 Leq at the least Bell's Vireo rest(s) during the breeding season (April through June) shall be allowed (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, 29. Prior to final inspection and approval, transition plantings shall be placed on manufactured slopes between the completed roadway and adjacent willow woodland areas associated with Bonita Canyon Reservoir. Native plants, such as described above under coastal sage scrub mitigation, will be used for the transition planting areas. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11)0 A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Measures outlined above for mitigation of losses of coastal sage scrub habitat will compensate for and minimize impacts on the San Diego homed lizard. If coastal sage scrub protection and replacement efforts are successful, horned lizard population within the study area should increase in size. 9943•JM-II B-X 347 ' 3.2.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of either of the Ford Road alternatives will remove occupied habitat of at least one nesting pair of California gnatcatchers. The displacement of this pair of gnatcatchers is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact of project development. Implementation of all preceding mitigation measures will reduce other impacts to insignificant levels. 9843-1PR-1160&X 348 3.3 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGYAND SOILS 3.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS A Geotechnical Evaluation of the Fold Road Realignment, dated November 14, 1991, was performed by Nolte Associates. This study, included in Appendix H and summarized in this section of the EIR, was performed to evaluate the general subsurface conditions along proposed routes for realignment of Ford Road with proposed connector streets. Data for the base maps utilized for the study were at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet. Topography The ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed roadway improvements consists of gently undulating grassy hills, interrupted occasionally by sometimes large granite outcrops. Bonita Creek is located north of the study area and a tributary from Bonita Creek running roughly north -south incises a deep ravine in the western portion of the study area (Figure 3.3-1). Elevations of the study area range from approximately 70 feet to over 200 feet above mean sea level (msl). Modifications to the natural landform of the study area include grading for the existing Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard surrounding the study area, and for the Lange Professional Plaza and Pacific Bell office facility in the western portion of the study area. Geologic Features The project study area is located in the northwest portion of the San Joaquin Hills, which are a part of the Peninsular Range Province of Southern California. Bedrock underlying the area consists of middle Miocene to late Pliocene age Marine deposits including sandstone, siltstone and shale of the Topanga, Monterey and Niguel Formations, with portions of the Topanga Formation interbedded and intettongued with hard Andesite Flows and Flow l3reccias. Pleistocene age Marine Terrace deposits mantle the bedrock over much of the higher portions of the property. Recent Alluvium and Pond Deposits occur in the major drainage course of Bonita Canyon, with Slopewash occurring in the lesser drainage courses. Compacted Fills are present along the existing Ford Road (Figure 3.3-2). Structurally, bedding is generally dipping northwesterly at 13 to 39 degrees. However, locally folded and faulted bedrock was observed. Several landslides and shallow slumps are also present within the study area, on the steep sided drainage areas. 9943•JPR-11606 X 3.49 � •l .�.. w�'Y.l. Y3•. Topography LE GEND p it..4• I X ELEVATION ///�/////////////// SLOPE AREAS FORD ROAD EXTENSION 3 AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES I. I'. figure: 3.3-1 165 660 ® THE KEITH CO © 1PANIES 0 330 990 • m ALT A_ e , =� S ��;pry /•_ :/t—.0 i _rev IN Geotechnical Map ' LEGEND SURFICIAL UNITS Af ARTIFICIAL FILL I Qcol QUATERNARY COLUVIUM Z a op QUATERNARY POND DEPOSITS Otn NON MARINE TERRACE Qtm MARINE TERRACE �i��._Io•��'--- ��T r-as re � %- .'ai-kdzf-_ ice' .5,�_' BEDROCK UNITS Tn NIGUEL FM II r' Tm MONTEREY FM Ttp TOPANGA FM - PAULARINO Ttp-f TOPANGA FM - VOLCANIC FLOW Ttp-b TOPANGA FM - VOLCANIC IASTIC BRECCIA Ttl TOPANGA FM - LOS TRANCOS iJA FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.3-2 165 660 ® THEM COMPANIES 0 330 990 Seismicity/Faults The region is seismically active, and large ground motion can be expected to occur as a result of earthquakes in Southern California. The faults most likely to generate earthquakes in the mapped area are San Andreas (48 miles), the San Jacinto (46 miles), the Whittier -Elsinore (21 miles), the Newport -Inglewood (3 miles), and the Norwalk (11 miles). Of these faults the most severe seismic impacts to the project study area would occur from a maximum credible earthquake on either the Newport Inglewood (magnitude 7.0) or the Whittier Elsinore (magnitude 7.5). Ground shaking in the study area would be greatest in the more unconsolidated non -marine Quaternary deposits, especially where the groundwater level is nearest the surface. The least response would occur in the more resistant bedrock; however, landsliding may be triggered in bedrock susceptible to slope failure. The maximum expected bedrock accelerations that can be expected in the area are on the order of 0.4gg with a predominant period of 0.35 seconds (California Department of Transportation Test 130, 1981). Several minor faults exist along both alternative A and B alignments. These faults are not considered active and therefore, no fault rupture is expected to occur along any of the alternative alignments. Two prominent fault traces, Shady Hills fault and Pelican Hill fault, are in close proximity to each proposed roadway alignment. Both faults are considered inactive (more than two to three million years since the last movement). Soils Soil types are taken from soil maps found in the Orange County Hydrology Manual. All soils encountered in the study area are considered to be "Group D", based on the Soil Conservation Service criteria. These soils have high runoff potential with slow infiltration rates and consist mainly of clay soils with a permanent high water table, or shallow soils over impervious material." 3.3.2 EAPACTS Topography Each roadway realignment will require substantial modification to the existing topography in the vicinity of the westerly drainage course crossing. Significant fill placement will be required within the deep ravine, though impacts are reduced with the proposed bridge at this location. Grading required along the alignment of the selected alternative, including cut and fill quantities, are shown in Table 3.3-1. 9843-rPR-11608-X 3-52 TABLE 3.3-1 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES Fill Cut Borrow Alternative (cu yd) (cu yd) (cu yd) A(D) (287,718) 114,029 (173,689) A(l) (234,302) 82,823 (151,479) A(II) (234,302) 77,884 (156,417) B(D) (241,724) 101,619 (140,105) B(l) (2062135) 100,941 (1052194) B(11) (206,135) 100,482 (105,653) C3 (41,015) 13,579 (27,436) CS (489807) 24,959 (23,848) 9643-IPR-11608-X 343 u ' As indicated in Table 3.3-1, Alternative A(D) requires the most grading, while Alternatives ' B(I) and B(II) require the least. Maximum fill slopes for A and B are 70 feet and 40 feet, respectively. A maximum cut height of 30 feet is indicated for the B alternatives while the A alternatives include maximum cuts of 20 feet (Figure 3.3-3). tGeologic Features ' Each of the alignment alternatives encounter geotechnical constraints related to earthwork construction. These include slope stability, rippability/excavatability and oversize materials, deep colluvium in proposed fill areas, liquefaction and seismically induced settlement. The soils and bedrock units underlying much of the study area are expected to be readily excavated with conventional heavy duty earthmoving equipment. Some very hard breccia, ' volcanic breccia, and volcanic flow rock of variable extent, exists on the eastern flank of the deeply incised ravine located east of MacArthur Boulevard, which may be marginally rippable ' or which may require localized pre -splitting. A thick outcrop of highly resistant volcanic breccia occurs north of existing Ford Road at Newport Hills Drive West. ' Difficult ripping or excavation and oversize materials are possible where cuts are made in resistant breccia of the Paularino member of the Topanga Formation, indicating material that will require heavy ripping and possible blasting. The breccia will be encountered along the t alignment of the westerly direct connector (DI) with either the A or B alignment of Ford Road, and may locally be encountered elsewhere along alignments A and B. Seismic profiling will be required to determine the need for pre -splitting if any of the alternatives with the direct ' connector (DI) are selected. Where pre -splitting is required it is anticipated that the explosive charge will be light (in the order of 0.8 Is of explosive per cubic yard of excavated earth) based on construction experience with the Newport Coast Drive project. Given the relatively 1 small size of the pre -splitting charge and the relatively large distance to residences (600 feet) it is probable that pre -splitting will not be felt or heard by local residents. As a demonstration of this, pre -splitting was used to construct Newport Coast Drive (formerly Pelican Hill Road) ' near the Bonita Reservoir and no complaints were made concerning the vibration/noise impacts of similar operations. Planned cuts will occur primarily in marine terrace deposits. ' Relatively shallow groundwater and soils which are susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction and settlement are located in the canyon east of MacArthur Boulevard. These conditions will be mitigated through proper bridge support and pier design. I I ' 9843-]PR-11608-X 3-54 Earthwork (Cut and Fill) ' �•^'•��'Q y lM1' rev—sv '_ —.. .. y, v ' •i ; "•)`JL -• J�,j._r.' IV x �,\ \ 'i} i i _- - ly _ T�s_„- ,,, '- - ,_�„=,_,y_-„�T _ _ • FUTURE SAN JOAOUtN HILLS TflANSPOPTATION CORRIDOR ��_' - I�-i /t t i r .. •.�=-_-'-' - / ' ,`i (\(�/, /_ l si' 1 \t \_.: „_`l •, .c.:` T=�rr "_. _�_'�", �F".---`.-r' - -. -- 4 1, _.._`'---.•_:F�—"�. -t '\ 1,� �.-S' " } �'.�,I'- . �«-e.. .--��.-i'-`—. •eft ..`�.�''.�'1 fir.: .+-.e\ _ ", t•lY\\1.1.��.3, .I , r �` e�r.}, k_ �i'. � -a_ '. `t/\,_an%�*-:--=-•,/,� '7: (?` "{..'sp.iriraaj i_._a� brx:aa v1Co_.'— S I ' i 'e .Y \ \•.i�l '': (�II %: `•t 1\ i:.,, :,, `^� '- a u T +ry 4. INC; 'r�i 1s r. 4 •\ ; ,•" •• \ \. ' cV ' I. ':•�,j-� ,""� `�':'. j � ii,<, i +(! :. ' :,, 2r � 4; i ? -„ ( - � � �/C�' a r at'al�d u . ''I I ` �'i � I' �! A\\ ''�'. '. r(.'�K ii h } - I � ' � �.-. q:< 1 l \., �^ � � - • �', "� J �',f•v „y�--1i"...9� .. \ _ _- d .: t \ -a• :Iri�(f \ , / G_<" � \ �: �: - `1r i �> s / _ , '\ \j .'�1.s•\\\' .ki 'i`•a rI LA. ,,'i`,�.r^� _��.}\ ,`yam. C '' x ?✓ \v "i .1. \, \ I,•�• 1�,�! 1'I; �Jqx\\: \� ', } 1;1 / - '/': \,\\4- ,.5 ;\'`.•4 ; - .h✓,-yN ,/`K' "+'`I N�!- LEGEND rl ( �i 'r. i�l'`'(:. ` ',,r,it'--��•. ,_.. rdd/ =.T� : %�''`ir :::.r - . y' :,C ." r`//%_.n ,l';1. 1,( `"�\ ;'I1 nosl 'r�I�%(/%\- / l.� _ i FnC, y-.'•h�,'yv I; 1v /`r/`�-!^�\�_J" i' k'\,\�y ' ,', ,a`' (' I p._." III :�,,.I �\'� `\� •t�: s+• I Il, '" '% ,; }1,•,' r'' ('_'� IO�J.a �!. ��dF _+r �� /�"• sx �t �` .��'•"' \ ` it �'�� \ � %, ii� rr \ �. x,.-art+ , ,r \ � _ � ,>��.i. y``�', \��i ,\'^;��-,.,�>.• 1I !� ///� � ' I i .''I \' �;rr, �, � `-��5, i :��' 1t �: '.I?I\ f}: <-�.:`~..-\1 % S:r--fit _ _- �\ /� ' lral l i/I I \\\� i I 't `y l� !�-i�f'�r �' '\ :i } '„' �., -:c ��q '� •) ( il. iu�_.'' 1:�,��{/"''' CUT .Jx}I r,''• , '� '� J{-r� � ` `: \\\\\�,p ' � •na � x , 1 ,I � I � \'1� ��"i .'.�'1 .- : iN ri �) i'' ,. 6.x r• .,! Ir %, .I/ '/� -�- �y3 :��x.:- 1rt., '\. •__. _. sf- r.)l �; /'l \�\ ,L r.11 �+^�;I(r17q; ,•�7�• t �I'l''�' ` '': N.= __"--_-�. �y',�.\ fy� _ 91 .rl \.t I '!'.l":-*.+ q \\i;'`\ti, �..y[_....a„_. �- _.,,I -f ^�4t`^• ,S1 s I 'li'i 1(I'II 't•�`#a._.-__ -\�G `\l FILL '>!'s:. _ �; . .�•.-"`� :. -- } •� . - r'• .• :,.Y"•'.'ec\.o i-w-'4'•t\ i., ,}-, ...- i �'�\`•: a ` \ f, \ ^\ �. \• �.. . r 1 �1 Il 1 i ° , !„ i( an , �_' • l a ' � i ! /•' � 31 ,t ..:. 1i r 1 . 7\., '/ \-./'�� $ u; ; �t..' \, _ �.i'.!\I :'" i�_�_ ',� i� 'I r �C i` �: ' ,} 4� \,� �l' 1 f' �'.�,+, ,'/;r' ;� �a 1�'r,t= ::•.r%Jx t !I yIY;C4 �'\S\ 1, 3''• /r •i ,, .J ` / \ •J \ � /' � ^ � ..-,`,1-,•.. \`j„ Nam': ' �4, �: � \ .. (lY - ,'. ` II � "�f - _ ` .05 :;{_ s\y L\Z:Y^;;� ,� r \�•� - tg:' � � t\.,, , 2 {-ti �`^,,, 'F\'' fYAS !1. _ •� r iE 1- _ �� •\ ,'{. , h `ll lil \�'�[-'' i4 >tii\ 3 !'�4�-. II t\.\\ �i .\. \' 1 ,,�'' ''rrl5• r y/^,j l (�' _ --� \ "\ tV ,� . , t Ns�- '''-s'�\-,:,-� • --�;\-)','III:.'. .il„ y .;' �; rF � : \. : ;r1 �' � :.'-_... � :Jk •q%t^/C. r`.}:i•-�-'- . • �`ay `- �• �/'Jr rl l sy 's f1_ \'v +\`' C i \;:r <: 1`�:: y m� :�'•! �` i ., I• .l . :� , tj ,\i -` �/• r� ..��b^'��,� ^. 1'y t ,j: t`1 , Ir 1 ,\; �•_ \ld•. — :�;. FORD ROAD EXTENSION `� 1. w •` •Mq�� ~..:,., ?y. - y� 7`r•A .Y,._f •`,�,�: I 1''I `.� /, \t.. . l__ , i •�-=iel ": 1 _.�.-�:= / s:,_•. by.'.` °, AND REALIGNMENT _.i i::�l j.• r 1 / �(`;.x r� W N �=-'\ �. �"l4L � �i is t'-.'.: `.�.> p. b` AGENCIES W ON CORRIDOR ; .' r'_'t' TRANSPORTATION figure: 3.3-3 165 660 ' ® THE KEITCOMPANIES ' 0 330 990 Several landslides were observed within the study area, indicating that future grading could produce additional slope instability through exposure of poorly consolidated soil, out of slope bedding and/or fractured bedrock. Unfavorable slope conditions will be reduced by proper orientation of proposed slopes, and by restructuring unstable slopes with stabilization or buttress fills, or by retaining walls. The bedrock consists of claystone, siltstone, and sandstone. The claystone is moderately to highly expansive while the siltstone has a low to medium expansion potential. The sandstone has a low expansion potential. The cwlluvium and alluvium contain layers of clayey sand and sandy clay. The sandy clay is considered moderately to highly expansive, and the clayey sand generally has low expansion potential. The terrace deposits generally have a very low to low expansion potential. While additional tests will be performed to confirm the expansion potential of the various materials, expansive soils are not anticipated to represent a constraint to any of the roadway alternatives. A final geotechnical investigation will be necessary during the final engineering stages of the selected alternative. Geotechnical impacts associated with the proposed bridge structures include: settlement of fill beneath abutment locations, compressible materials at abutment locations, depth to bedrock (bearing layers), and shallow groundwater. These impacts will be mitigated by proper engineering design. Groundwater is locally present but is not expected to significantly impact roadway design. It will affect, however, the installation of deep foundations in unconsolidated deposits. Local perched water will require special treatment. Seismicity Seismic risk in Southern California is a well recognized factor, and is directly related to geologic fault activity. Seismic damage potential depends on the proximity to active or potentially active fault zones, and on the type of geologic structures. In Southern California, most of the seismic damage to man-made structures results from ground -shaking, and to a lesser degree from liquefaction and ground rupturing caused by earthquakes along active fault zones. In general, the greater the magnitude of the earthquake, the greater the potential damage. During historic times, a number of major earthquakes have occurred along the Whittier -Elsinore and the Newport -Inglewood fault zones which have the greatest potential for causing earthquake damage at the study area. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-56 A maximum credible earthquake occurring on the near -by Newport -Inglewood fault (magnitude 7.0) or the Whittier -Elsinore fault (magnitude 7.5) would produce the most severe seismic impacts at the study area (even greater than the well known San Andreas fault which is 46 miles from the project study area). The secondary effects of seismic activity as a consequence of sever ground shaking include landsliding, subsidence, ground rupture and liquefaction. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, soUlmdrock and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors. In general, the project slopes are designed to be constructed at overall inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. Steeper slopes may be used in rock -like materials, where factors of safety against landsliding clearly demonstrate adequate stability under seismic loads. The probability of groundshaking induced landsliding is very low and does not represent a significant impact. Subsidence due to earthquake induced ground shaking tends to occur in loose cohensionless soils. Upon grading completion, it is expected that the upper surficial, relatively loose material will have been removed. Therefore, the probability of earthquake -induced subsidence is considered low and is not considered a significant impact. The alternative routes traverse mostly areas containing terrace deposits. Groundwater was observed in the non -marine terrace deposits and is probably in the colluvium and alluvium in the canyons. Localized liquefaction could occur in the non -marine terrace deposits, alluvium and colluvium under a severe earthquake, but the probability of Such occurrence is low, and does not represent a significant impact. The nearest trace of a historically active fault (Newport -Inglewood) is about three miles from the study area. The potential for ground rupture due to faulting is considered low and does not represent a significant adverse impact. Because of topographic conditions, proposed grades, and the lack of large reservoirs (except for the San Joaquin Reservoir) that could flood the property, the potential for seismically - induced flooding is considered low and not significant. Summary of Alternatives Table 3.3-2 represents a comparison of the alternatives. Alternatives A(I) and A(11) will avoid most of the areas where hard bedrock cuts are anticipated. Hard bedrock cuts requiring heavy ripping or possible blasting will be required by both of the alternatives utilizing the westerly direct connector (Dl). These would include A(D) and B(D). 9843-IM-11608-X 3.57 TABLE 3.3-2 GEOTECHNICAL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative Approx.Max. Approx.Max. Approx. Approx.Max. Estimate of Approx. Percentage Fill Thick Fill Slope Max.Cut. Cut Slope Excavation of Route with Very ness Height Depth Height Material: Difficult Excavationl0 (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Type/Approx.%11 A(D) 25 70 20 20 Qtn/Qtm(92%) 3% Ttp-b(8%) Ttl(< 1 %) A(I), A(Il) 25 70 20 20 Qtn/Qtn(98%) 1% Ttp-t(2%) B(D) 50 40 20 30 Qtm(87%) 3% Ttp-b(9%) Ttl(4%) B(1), B(11) 50 40 20 30 Qtm(94%) < 1 % Ttp-b(6%) C3 25 20 10 10 Qtn(100%) 0 C5 25 30 10 10 Qtn(100%) 0 10. Appropriate indicator of the need for pre -splitting (light blasting). 11. Type of material and percentage along the route Qtn = Non -marine terrace deposit Qtm = Marine terrace deposit Ttp-b = Topanga Formation, volcaniclastic breccia Ttl = Topanga Formation, Los Trancos member 3.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 30. Prior to approval of final engineering design plans and during the construction -phase of development, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to minimize seismic related hazards: A. Proposed fill soils shall be preconsolidated. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12)9 B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). B. Fill slopes shall be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Unless construction in rock -like materials or competent soils demonstrates that adequate factors of safety against landsliding exist. The placing of fill material shall be monitored by the soils engineer. (Alignments A(D), A(i), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12)2 C-31 C-5 and No Project). C. Fault zones exposed in cut slopes will be avoided where feasible. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(12), C-31 C-5 and No Project). D. Existing landslide areas will require either stabilization or removal of landslide materials during project grading. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12)0 B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 31. Realigned Ford Road will be designed in accordance with Caltrans seismic design requirements in order to offset potentially adverse effects associated with ground shaking. Special attention will be given to the seismic design of the two bridge structures. Such designs will incorporate, where appropriate, the improved structural features listed below and state of the art seismic design standards. o Vertical restrainers to tie the superstructures and abutments together during extreme seismic motions. The need for restrainers will be determined during design; o Heavy keys to limit movement between the superstructures and abutments. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and Increased column spiral reinforcement in accordance with the most recent version of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C- 3, C-5 and No Project). 9943.)M-1160A-X 3-59 I ' 32. Prior to construction, in those areas where fill foundations will be placed, soft ' consolidated soils shall be removed and/or recompacted. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 33. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, additional drilling and/or seismic profiling ' shall be performed to determine excavation characteristics in specific cut areas. These areas would include the alignment A or B bridges at the eastern flank of the large canyon east of MacArthur Boulevard, and also along the westerly direct connector ' (aligned with Newport Hills Drive West). (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 1 34. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development, activities related to pre -splitting and placement of structural footings shall be controlled to limit the ground -borne vibration where structures and other cultural resources are within 500 feet from the construction site. Pre -splitting in such areas shall be monitored by the TCA; if it is determined that site preparation cannot be conducted in a manner to prevent damage to ' structures and other cultural resources, alternative methods of construction shall be utilized. Further contractors will comply with all local sound control and noise level requirements, regulations and ordinances which apply to all work performed on the ' Ford Road project, and will make every effort to control noise associated with the construction operation. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), ' B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 35. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, supplemental geotechnical investigations ' identified in the project geotechnical report (Appendix H) will be performed to provide parameters needed for final design. Grading recommendations included in this report for site preparation and removals, fill placement, slopes, oversize materials and construction observation and testing will be adhered to in the construction phase. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 3.3.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE DAPACTS ' There would be no significant unavoidable adverse geotechnical impacts remaining after implementation of the above mitigation measures. 1 k ' 9843-JPR-1160$--X 3.60 3.4 AESTHETIC RESOURCES 3.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing views and aesthetic resources of the study area are shown in Figure 3.4-1. The overall appearance of the study area changes due to seasonal rainfall. During spring views of the the study area include annual grasses, wildflowers and annual flowering plants. During summer, fall and winter the study area vegetation is brown. The study area has varying topography including ravines and flat pastures. The study area generally slopes from south to north with elevations over 220 feet above mean sea level in the southeast quadrant of the study area near the Ford Road/San Miguel Drive intersection and Coyote Canyon Road, to low elevations of approximately 70 feet above mean sea level in the northwest quadrant of the project study area. The study area is split by ravines cut by tributary channels to Bonita Creek. Two major ravines traverse the study area. One is extended across the project study area in a north/south direction east of and parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, with the channel up to eighty feet deep. The other extends in a northwest/southeast direction, is up to forty feet deep and drains to Bonita Reservoir. The project study area retains some aesthetic and visual appeal as open spnce/pasture, though surrounded on several sides by arterial roadways and, residential development. Features with aesthetic value include the wetlands vegetation of the Bonita Reservoir, the Bonita Creek tributary arroyo extending through westerly portions of the study area up to Ford Road, and the complex of buildings and buffalo corrals comprising the Lange Financial Plaza at MacArthur Boulevard. The westerly arroyo appears from Ford Road as a steep grassy ravine transitioning to increasingly dense willow riparian vegetation at its upper reaches near the roadway. A small rock waterfall feature occurs within the narrow incised arroyo bottom in this reach. Near Ford Road, the uppermost elevations of the ravine are marked by an exposed vertical shaft of rock which appears in marked contrast to the surrounding grassland slopes. The natural amenity of Bonita Creek north of the project study area has been significantly altered by channelization associated with adjacent Newport Coast Drive improvements. The study area is located within Bonita Canyon and is visible from both near and far vantage points. Higher elevations of the study area are visible from existing Ford Road, while only glimpses of the study area can be seen from MacArthur Boulevard. 9943-)PA-116WX 3.61 FUTURE SJHTC nnUlKIAA1T \/ICIIAI CCATIInC t EXISTING HILLSIDE CUT SLOPE /41111MY VI_CIRI M 8�I Visual Resources LEGEND VISTAS/VIEW CORRIDORS OF FUTURE FORD ROAD VIEWS TO/FROM FUTURE ......•••••• FORD ROAD SCREENED BY RIDGELINES SLOPE AREAS CUT FILL FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES I. figure: 3.4-1 ( 165 660 ® THE KEIT© PANIES ( 0 330 990 I ' Portions of the study area are also visible from north -facing residences at higher elevations in ' the Seawind and Harbor View Knoll developments to the south and southeast, and from the UC Irvine campus to the north. ' Views from the study area include Newport Center high rise buildings, Seawind and Harbor Ridge, UC Irvine campus, and adjacent land uses including residential and commercial development along the south side of Ford Road. Although currently undeveloped, the project study area is planned for urban development including high and medium high density residential, commercial and institutional uses. An ' open space/conservation area encompassing Bonita Reservoir and one of its tributaries is also planned (see Section 3.5 Land Use). It is likely that implementation of this type of development will result in multi -story buildings which will alter aesthetics of existing open space and eliminate or change the character of views of the proposed project from surrounding existing land uses. However, these plans are consistent with the broader approach to regional open space protection undertaken as part of City of Irvine General Plan Amendment 16. This ' approach has resulted in increases in committed open space areas in conjunction with development of the area surrounding the Ford Road project study area. ' Figure 3.4-2 presents an index of photographs taken at the project study area. Figures 3.4-3 through 3.4-7 present site photos both to and from the project study area. 3.4.2 IMPACTS Views of the project, depending on the location of the observer, would consist of finished roadbed, overhead lighting, vehicles, sound and retaining walls and cut and fill slopes due to grading. To determine the extent of the project realignment and extension visual impact on ' surrounding vantage points and on the general public travelling through the project study area, a visual impact analysis was conducted. ' A significant adverse visual impact is one which has a substantial and demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Determination of aesthetic value is a subjective process; however, development of a set of criteria for analyzing impacts provides an adequate level of objectivity ' for purposes of determining, according to CEQA guidelines, whether or not visual/aesthetic impacts would be negative. F I The visual impacts of the Ford Road extension and realignment alternatives on adjacent sensitive resources have been analvzed usine the followine set of criteria. 9943-IPR-11608-X 3-63 o Distance from the Roadways - Resources can be categorized as having short or long range views of the project. Areas with short range views are located less than 1,500 feet from the project and those with long range views are greater than 1,500 feet. Resources with short range views are sensitive to visual impacts of the roadway, particularly without mitigation or intervening topography, impacts on long range views would be below the level of significance. o Elevation - Resources can be located at various heights in relationship to the roadway. These heights range from lower than the roadway, even with roadway or higher than the roadway. Resources that are lower than or even with the roadway could experience potentially significant visual impacts, without mitigation; impacts to resources higher than the roadway would be below the level of significance. It should be noted that these determinations of significance assume that no intervening topography, landscaping or structures exist between the resource and the project. Landform Alteration - Landform types in the vicinity of the project include low, level alluvial plains, rolling hillsides and ridgelines. Alteration of hillsides and ridgelines, due to Ford Road construction, would result in potentially significant visual impacts, without mitigation; alteration of level plains would result in impacts below the level of significance. o Grading - Cut and fill slopes due to construction of the facility which are visible from the sensitive resource. Grading of greater than 50 feet of cut or fill, due to Ford Road construction, could result in potentially significant visual impacts, without mitigation; grading of less than 50 feet would result in impacts below the level of significance. o Screening - The Ford Road alignment alternatives may be blocked by existing intervening topography, landscaping or structures. Resources which are not screened or are incompletely screened from the project could experience potentially significant visual impacts, without mitigation; while resources which are completely screened from the project would experience impacts below the level of significance. It should be noted that these determinations of significance include the effects of existing intervening topography, landscaping and structures. Views to and from sensitive resources are provided in Figures 3.4-3 to 3,4-7. Cross -sections representing roadway -visual resource elevation relationships are included as Figures 3.4-8 to 3.4-10. 9943dPR•II"X 1-64 Site Photograph Index LEGEND WINWmawl CROSS SECTION FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.4-2 165 660 ® W6 THE KEICOMPANIES 0 330 990 ^ 4" _G fY +' ..— y. •L-' �t3.'�: v.r•S�-w- � - i^rt�1'rlr 4 1 a•yVi_ NT.iar7[?•C ._.: -i 4+�rs� ..ram - - _ T .� i� � ,7�w..wwF` �Y v: 4•w'+- �3�,P. •. ?f�.ly" � ��+ �,^S •6 p�-�"yr''�c' Y� fr C 1 w✓'� ` �"•%' .;AF'« � W a 4....e�.^•f _ .... i•r. '�`.�: `�,!'a. �. „�"Y"wVlh �r".y YF ST'v'r'^•Sy,"W�� - • � �`"�,, `- � .�F, , J, p• ♦ ilk .. en'Ir^ _ y..,,,�_�s «..'a .r , i'fRi . j _ ..y` � .` � q. .may.::, 'i• g�',yS� �v%t�.'SY+�y q`>.;. .., .. mifyi 1 . ^,.t .. .. . .. ,�'. c t rr. . � • r xx' �a='4i��.•` .r . -�-ter ...+..�;;!K. •! _ y . L ciM�t:C{, �'' �ira�a�i��h.��Y. _ -. -cam.. r 8 ". - - `� .,.•, . ,,.1 - � � :?'e e"� p :."'wit•_ _ •" - -t __ -r"'a"'s'�,�.>� �z'ib.. „•,_ ra . IfinrYF.'..+�yx,�jf St..K mcjc- 'J1. I .... :i � a4 � �irk�Y+r'�'�utliC's'• Lief��74 _ _ •a ..s '•"iMrn«.nt 9 •. J4 u', nl• �r :. 'ra'SY"'�titX',n k' lr" .w J r f ' ` f St^i � tA 0.11 � j ., fxi •1�4i ..,,4 ♦.. � tiC . c • s r ,t }.. M^ � �S`i'Sw3' .r aIIV IS't�1-+:.yl'�' 1 �il��e` `.rlt 'Y'•M �,��^:'«:'Wy Yam.^ .�ij" _ •.}V -+ .w 71' "yam-�,'' .. r J.,i 1�� v._� /F`Lr,l.wt � aT�i7^Y'iL..-• '� •xj'.:*F C4'�h�rv',;,4t^� I: .. .Y. r 1 wR '� ^InR`yl[ - 'Rll71il7fi��idlC��U�"i• w �... � ��.y *S+ ' � ` .is. tl � •� i i... !?'? I'��i' +. Y""'ns 1W��t ,, 4 ri[� ifL iyFlil - t �r:. ��• MY � �i '� •'`'n_N.• - � �,f.� 1 ..rn Af•' t'1T V, �+._T :: �_,vAc.... �' �'W �f•^.. � ... �_ �.�'A • ..w.r+•--` sv--e� '. ! � a�-s•+..nw�. yS-Rv♦ �--+w^3 p Ja `* —'—'- -'t � nm.Y' � w s w ,Rl4ewi.`w'y4.• Y • i?ss 1 ' U' . ' _ _ 9 . -. --xG •-..++ ..• .., �+ E" 1 i �. � - Y ,;fie `1. M1, 11 ', f, • - V 4 .r. • .+.n�I1 .� -IAw , : /� .n ♦r.. Sv •' �' i'' 1 •.. .', ,%t .v T. • . I �ryycc eR ,..r.. [�. •,4y� "'Sirs` +7iui i��.i .5 .. "'��I ;`Sy�� " ''��Sl)+t �fllCi Fti. J` 1 J' � •ry..�' '� au. `J , .. ��i{' >.,��Ja<�t v. n G � a ` 'aSl. 4 15•�; � wj'Nati�h ' • t ✓ i • .lfggY i "Y a'p ' rljjdd # fpJ,?� • r�`,y5�, I S Yu�yyi�yl j� G ) R � �r A:F k' S t 5 f y. t` a��.' ( J�1 rFS '�•'7't• ^ST�fY •w 1 :S A,-ltr�`. 1 `I (• t a i .. - �c'+ f • !:•.i:.se, Yt, "x' �A++'S rl..y+Y'Fsm ., i'.:a �'.�d�n�'1�.Q'a�oX ....v. �,i' n."h�1�f'` r ,t,It�+ r{ y . N 1I may]- ` r` -r ^i J ' t V F. �,;.xya' Y, ✓'• -it+ u, J?,7 _ eE . ♦ I�, '-� - >�,. ,:r}I-J`4fl r!!�1 �y. t� .,�Y Jr r(5f"'. % L. 1t• JF '.'�1`: "l.%:'. rM •rf'•�`kei �5;' Y n.'� .J f .f ,'. ' ,. >'✓4 i._ -•fir '1�' ;5;('t �' w •"-yi1�Jf iyt;'�Mr�k2"<, ;" ,i ,i' 'k.. �� .ht`Y'�j� .5.'{., '7Zj;�(r�ti "�ci '��i n: �'e�' e•.. i.i _u t .mot x:_ e. f ". .•,{w R I j's 5c$it° S , :4 2.�" 5 . r f; igf LS .S`;..r '�M,-t2t� a'Um 'h:i vz , = ..,. ''�-y s. + '�i,in �"?T'''iS•l"Y"S• "t, r.r;, !h%Ii'.•r ;"�Ip.�; I�; ?. . `•[. ,Z � Y' .tS'Ji J� ' �f'^J+ t • .i fJ,f� .a 'C ENqINDIRECVIEW FROM.ALIGNMAD�F{ � tr}' w71��•��'t a, �I�,(�.yI�l iIn�}l�ir xS7 ^ ,.;a,y"M!'•Y T`e'r,Ct,'uI •?a;s=+ YI ,;'�,' is • i, , j(,k.l.. .. J• �I H1i' r I Jl1yv€'it lw ..�f ., 1 `, i; I/•..I' n� al ,�J' rw fv,�...1 y�.' L. ' .. _„ _ '•„�-.�.rh_ J ]4i,Y�,•'•'�'e`+a,•i{r'�...- Y:r . I �j.�� '�:ifvr �.'� + .ATM ,lid ♦5 '7�.� _ , '� I , Mo••.w-,r.w� ..--._ Y F +!r-.w..r.. emF711 ..�."w."�r.,w�-H..r+., ...-.v. p • .s _ w �i t41: � I ,f, a #.iR e � .:r Y if 7 !�Y' .^•. i , - - r SOUTH VIEW FROM ALIGNMENT A (FUTURE RESIDENTIAL -AREA) t _ ,,J ,. Is Is Is .t •I• �•. `1 .�.`r' • l .. f. •�'' �-t: ;k;� 17r E•>• � � MT% �•r^,'Irh.�:s,��'!J� -" t',Si .'��}�t r..r�.. �� 1.,'j�`', I �. 1j, i /M •IrJ! ` �.I, 1.. J H It Ir.r. f .it- •i __ .t.. 't! o f f,---�i IDA J.,. wi. ''4"S�% *•'5::.! I ' • I - .'�• {F ' 4-• •�F4`}%��L..�„�r, N � '`�..I¢ � �r i""„--a—.;.. -... ..r—.. -.o•' • so. rf r: ♦7..�•,.. - S ry ��3 F r•��-'N F „iT� { "� ..--�v � .a •..r+ a. ram,' �y 4 K z.Y%hW'1 q-C ra+ •_ ;_tom _..-".. � . - '�s �"' 0.,•,.M1ti�.y 3'�1"iiJ: Y.�i -'{1�'s'^r l � z.rt. a�hy1,._,.v •_ — ' 4�.�e...;:r�L'^e$'+�+�:�.p+�1et�^''r.*+:ali*.i+ita.S�rS� ..w.e. x ..s,,,,r,,.,... �.: � :i > Wn _ lM..� .—]1 •''��"' f '•tU Y LK l��y .may' ;�+ •�� w J� 'Fl. { 1 w �.e 'iJ� f. .ice •E x( iiy'•I l�`.�.ii:jT�1 } A�7 i�'t, a. '`_� � 'i. E s,. �+l M�rriYn.. %a. 'r{f'.. �.,Y "".�.x+ 2'��J �. �t-`�'�'k�S��"-F�Y�M' '" � iCy,�CI"'N•1-�• W i �� . r`'�Q2 :r P � .� ''�i'd' � yr .�Y.K z .3-ry x �� 'l�v.:"'rr �•yn_..•--. r. ""t+`Kn "t '_!YI't u N':• �rMir�+ � t . � i54a F. -v , t' �``��' Syr �'C N 'w��. aaify�' i "'f_'e•-�-s'•' _ _ .... -. _ - ._. — �. - - - z�tr�-•f' s .may` t �. .�� :D e - ., N �:_�N a s •Z.•+: g < �, t' }Hrx `c2 'i .+cam, .'t?'115�• � ,i +'S :...... `. 2 y.1a. r, �,,, 1. PYw�.K- a > .f s<rl 4 � r rV W`- Y`".•..1-� e •y1 ... r : s � . ._ .. 4..: •. � c_uw..-. .-. •...-. w.wv,.- � -y.. .. y _r• t+f �x 2t • ..'.. ' r __ ' a ^'.}. '_i Y !�'" wq ' :� .\ •'`' S �....r^". , a..."�,�) ?�Fw b _ �•..... .... ail , . f . !I ' ' \' r y.y 4, .Yy� t-C4 �'.:.i i1 •. Mf'A... _.:F_ \t .4 :• _ • \+ c �'^ •. '. �' � 1 •t— � \Y � r ..,.-/LiY ah+:.%4 �X��.. A. •,S a�'.f S.i�i• H�fr. � _r �'. - ,.a rr ..f ' f., -. =a+=_ • _ .-S: , 1. —�• These photographs and cross -sections represent the general visual impacts that the project would have on existing views from sensitive resources along its alignment. Identification of the alignments is based on engineering drawings, available for review at the TCA. On the basis of 'distance from the roadways' criteria alone, both Alignments A and B fall within the 'short-range' views category with respect to homes along existing Ford Road. However, both Alignments A and B would be only intermittently visible from vantage points along existing Ford Road prior to residential development of intervening land. Views of a realigned Ford Road would be screened from existing homes along Ford Road between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive by existing rear yard block walls and landscaping, and no adverse impacts are anticipated. Roadway segments which would be visible from existing Ford Road include the following: o Alignment A or B bridge over westerly large canyon; o Alignment B between westerly indirect connector (Il) and Newport Hills Drive East. o Alignments A or B east of Hillside Drive and easterly indirect connector (12) to SJHTC interchanges; o Connector road approaches and intersections with existing Ford Road (Dl, I1, D2, 12). Visually sensitive areas include realigned Ford Road between MacArthur Boulevard and the westerly canyon, and realigned Ford and Coyote Canyon Road access north and east of Harbor View Knoll. MacArthur Boulevard to Westerly Canyon -- An Alignment A or B bridge and associated fill placement at abutments and along the westside of the ravine would be visible from the Lange Financial Plaza site, Pactel building and from the proposed westerly cul-de-sac of existing Ford Road. In particular, fill slopes up to 70 feet in height in lower portions of the canyon would be required with any of the A alignment alternatives. Manufactured slopes of this height would exceed the previously noted 'grading' threshold of significance. However, as fill placements and the bridge will be lower than adjacent canyon terraces, views from the nearby office buildings, existing Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard will not be adversely impacted. This finding is consistent with the 'elevation' criteria previously presented. Views of the roadway and manufactured slopes within the canyon will be further softened by landscaping and revegetation of slopes. Construction of the westerly direct connector alternative (DI) would result in an additional crossing of the ravine and an additional visual impact. This impact would be avoided with the indirect connector option (Il). 9843-1PR-11608-X 3-71 North and Bast of Harbor View Knoll - Both Alignments A and B, and the Coyote Canyon Road access (C3 or C5) would be visible to several nearby homes at the north and east ' perimeter of this residential enclave. Future views in this easterly portion of the study area will be dominated by the SJHTC and its , approved interchange with Ford Road. Neither a realigned Ford Road (A or B), its extension to the SIHTC, or the Coyote Canyon Road access (C3 or C5) will result in any additional significant adverse impacts to residential views in this area. This conclusion is based on the ' fact that residential views of the nearby realigned roadway and Coyote Canyon Road access will be from higher elevations and will also be partially screened by existing trees on the , perimeter slopes (see 'Elevation' and 'Screening' criteria). As a result of distance, elevation differences significant impacts to long range views acr, Seawind and Harbor Ridge will occur wit Alternatives A(D), A(n, A(11), B(D) or B(11). and intervening topography and structures, no ' ,ss Bonita Canyon from Harbor Views Hills, i implementation of any of the Ford Road The UC Irvine campus is located on a knoll, with the majority of the existing campus facilities situated in the lower elevations on the northern side of the knoll. The only exception to this is the faculty housing along Los Trancos Drive. Southern views from the UC Irvine campus are predominated by undeveloped University owned land except in high rise campus towers from which undeveloped Bonita Canyon, residential development and the Pacific Ocean can be seen. The Ford Road alignment alternatives are generally situated at lower elevations than the UC Irvine property, therefore views of the project from UC Irvine would be limited to elevated locations such as high rise campus towers and on campus faculty housing adjacent to Los Trancos Drive. Located on the northern side of the knoll, the campus would be not significantly affected by a realignment of Ford Road due to distance and the topographic interference of the knoll feature. I "Portions of either Alignment A or Alignment B would be visible from future development in areas of the southerly extension of the UCI Campus development. The proposed project will be q3 ' constructed prior to the southerly extension of the UCI Campus and significant impacts to views from UCI are not anticipated. 9P3-JM-II &X 3-72 ' 1I Section No. 1 (Looking East) Datum = 89.000 Direct Connector Ground O N . . "' - In . - m . - - Q r — O . N - Q . P - O . � - O . 0-- O O T T rn m O O O :O O P O O O N O m m O . . . . . . . O N N T N Q to U) to m co- - - - - - - - ,n �n m to n O n m In m — — m - P m In m m m n T m Q m m m n 0 o m O N Design I O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 O 00 O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S S S O O O O O O O O O O m — N rn P to m Station o — N P n ti m T — — Key Existing Grade Proposed Project Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B SOURCE: NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES figure: 3A-8 Section No. 1 FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Section No. 2 (Looking East) Datum - 147,000 Existing Ford Road a m M M P M O In Q A N ti M P M _ N ti OI M Omp C O M 10 !r N 4 P N f� i� — OI 0 OI — m b O ✓a N N- to m T A b P Ip W OI (n ON ON Y N &� M — — — — — — — — N N N N N N N w m Oq n Cn m O N Design ac Q Ic m v W ;c N O O 0 0 0 O 0 O o O O O O O a o 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O •O � Station 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 M 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 N ID 9 OI 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M Q N {O Kay ® I I t.__a Existing Grade Proposed Project Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Qvum%iC MJW C ANU Section No. 2 FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT 09". 3.4.9 THE KEITH COMPANIES I IA II .. (Looking ,t, Hillside �"Y-Y'+,arv_Ya�,y��7''�' � G. ,_��`_i•`% �?:'✓�',7`tr Ft i�.r. �t. .y'. rr�: f.Y ,�¢ 1�� /t3•is1_ !r >• ST.•'Zh" +�' �`t,J��j,>' "j, .y�Ylrfi. , �C� P. ,��rCi r� r Y i+ 'y�a�9� rk rt� �� r r Sul � �� r 1�.�`. �ti `.R y aY't. t+Yr?:f�`•': ' rt �9+i4 . i'."�1f .} 7�. ^ ..t.. a�[ar.�it�f�%�t-t.'rh �tEttYr,: �.. ,. ? � , mot• �,', Ground - Design Key V/1 Existing Grade Proposed Project Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B SOURCE: NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES Section No, 3 FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT SPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.4-10 THE KErrH Roadway construction will alter the natural landform of the area. Each proposed alternative will require extensive grading to overcome changes in topography and elevate the roadway over existing utilities. Implementation of measures, such as revegetation, slope rounding and contour grading, in the project design would reduce or soften the visibility of the roadway and its connectors. Each roadway alignment [A(D), A(I), A(II), B(D), B(I) and B(11)] will remove future traffic from existing Ford Road, thereby reducing the aesthetic impacts to existing residential areas to the south that would otherwise occur with the No Project Alternative. While Alignment B will be visible from more locations along existing Ford Road than A, no existing views from the residential areas will be significantly adversely affected by any of the alternatives. Alternative alignments are proposed northerly of the existing Ford Road for the most part at lower elevations, and will therefore be less visible from residential areas to the south. Future intervening residential development will further screen alignments from view to the south. Selection of the westerly indirect connector (Il) with either Alignment A or B would avoid visual and aesthetic impacts on the westerly canyon which would occur with the direct connector option (DI). Coyote Canyon Road access Alternative C-3 would be located an additional and 650 feet further away than Alternative C-5 from the nearest residences, and would minimize aesthetic impacts. However, no significant adverse visual or aesthetic impacts would result from either alternative. 3.4.3 MITIGATION MEASUM 36. Prior to final field inspection and approval, adjacent landforms, where affected by Ford Road improvements, shall be recontoured to provide a smooth and gradual transition between modified landforms and existing grade and to avoid the appearance of manufactured grading. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 37, Prior to approval of final design drawings, plans shall show that where alignments cross the westerly canyon, the designated Preservation Open Space spine and approach to Bonita Reservoir, selection and use of landscape materials will recognize the opportunities for enhancing slope landform variation. Natural vegetation which is drought tolerant with low maintenance requirements, shall be located in appropriate locations and densities to fit into the natural setting, and reduce yard trimmings. Use of sculptured landscaping (i.e., varied height and species diversity) will assist in disguising the manufactured slope appearance and will emphasize slope variation. Proper material 9943-IM-11606-X 3.76 selection and location of native plant materials, combined with sculptured grading, will ' emulate the adjacent natural setting. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 38. Prior to final field inspection and approval, detailed landscape plans shall be prepared and implemented for cut and fill slope areas. Such plans will include type and density of ground cover, seed or hydromulch mix, plant sizes soil compatibility with seeds and plants selected, and temporary irrigation systems during plant establishment. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 39. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, trees shall be incorporated into the Ford Road vegetation and landscaping plan where feasible. (Alignments A(D), A(L), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 40. During the construction -phase of development, vegetation removal will be limited to the area required for immediate construction operations. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(l), B(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 41. During the final design, landscaping shall be added to soften the visual effects of retaining walls. The project landscape architect shall determine the appropriate planting material and irrigation system for maintaining survival. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 42. The Ford Road engineering design plans shall include the lowering of the roadway profile ' between stations 51 + 50+ and 60 + 00+ (between the easterly connector to the bridge). In TOP�CkL addition, a landscaped earthen berm shall also be provided on the southerly side of Ford. RE��NSE These measures shall block the direct line of sight from a point 10 feet above the most 4 northerly edge of the realigned Ford Road pavement to the first floor level of the homes located on the northerly side of Hillview Drive. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), ' B(D), B(I), B(II), B(M). u I9843-1PR-11608-X 3-77 NEW FORD ROAD L i t w� SECTION AA i ^•• . _ A- •'t r . - f19M 3.4-11 Earth Berm FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT F5 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES M MI MI=I�I=I I• I= t M m m m m m M M E m s F 3.4.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EM PACTS ' No significant unavoidable adverse visual/aesthetic impacts would remain along the realigned and extended Ford Road right-of-way after implementation of mitigation measures. 1 II II II II II 1-1 ' 9843-JPR 11608-X 3-79 1 3.5 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING 3.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project study area is characterized by undeveloped rangeland utilized for cattle grazing, ' watershed and wildlife habitat purposes. Developed features or other activities include the Lange Financial Plaza with office uses, the Pacific Bell office facility, outdoor storage for a nursery and a Christmas tree farm. , Other' uses of the land have included a borrow site utilized previously by Caitrans for road ' construction within its expanded right-of-way east of MacArthur Boulevard near Bison Avenue, dirt access roads crossing the area, and utility lines. Surrounding Uses ' These uses 1) include the roadways defining the project study area, including existing Ford , Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Coast Drive and Coyote Canyon Road, 2) surrounding established residential areas, 3) a neighborhood shopping center and 4) undeveloped within the land holdings of the University of California, Irvine (Figure 3.5-1). ' Residential Neighborhoods within the City of Newport Beach include 1) Belcourt, a single --family ' detached unit development west of MacArthur Boulevard; 2) Harbor View Homes, adjacent to and south of existing Ford Road west of San Miguel Drive; and 3) Harbor View $noll, which includes 64 multi -family attached units immediately south of the terminus of existing Ford Road. Further south of the project study area are the Seawind, Harbor Ridge, and Spyglass Hill neighborhoods. South of Ford Road and west of MacArthur Boulevard is an attached residential development and the Big Canyon golf course. , Commercial The Newport Hills Shopping Center is located at the intersection of San Miguel Drive and ' existing Ford Road. The neighborhood center includes a supermarket, bank, service station , and several small shops. I 9643-M-11606-X 3•30 1 Existing Land Uses LEGEND 1. LANGE PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 2. PACIFIC BELL OFFICE 3. HARBOR VIEW HOMES 4. NEWPORT HILLS SHOPPING CENTER 5. HARBOR VIEW KNOLL (RESIDENTIAL) 6. SEAWIND (RESIDENTIAL) 7. U.C.I. 8. TREE FARM AND NURSERY STORAGE +I 9. BELCOURT (RESIDENTIAL) 10. ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL 11. BIG CANYON (RESIDENTIAL) FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 1 1 figure: 3.5-1 ® 0 400 800 THE KEITH COMPANIES I Institutional ' University of California - The campus of the University of California, Irvine (UCI) is located north of the project study area. The University's landholdings include the existing campus ' area as well as the currently undeveloped properties extending south to Newport Coast Drive. Current uses include the central campus complex facilities and peripheral student and faculty housing areas. Land Use Plans ' City of Irvine ' General Plan - The study area is included within the City of Irvine Planning Area 26. The Land Use Element of the City of Irvine General Plan identifies five land use categories within the study area: District Commercial, Multi -Use, Medium -High Density Residential, Medium - Density Residential, and Preservation Open Space. (Figure 3.5-2).12 The extreme northwest portion of the study area includes a planned District Commercial area. The District Commercial category is intended to accommodate the commercial needs of a ' group of villages or a district (40,000 - 100,000 people). The corresponding land use intensity standard for this area is 110,000 square feet.13 ' The Multi -Use designation occupies 53 acres in the western portion of the Planning Area, and has an intensity standard of 490,000 square feet for the Planning Area. The Multi -Use land use category provides for varying intensity and a variety of land uses. Any multi -use designation may contain one or more land uses. Generally, land uses in this category are high intensity and urban in character. The permitted land uses include: high density residential (25-40 du/ac), and where noted in the General Plan Text, medium high (10- 25 du/ac); commercial; institutional; and conservation and open space land uses. Within ' Planning Area 26 the Multi -Use designation will allow up to 800 dwelling units in lieu of commercial at high or medium high density development. For each dwelling unit provided the total allowable commercial development will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the traffic ' generated by the dwelling unit (in average daily vehicle trips). ' 12. City of Irvine General Plan, Land Use Element, updated Manh 12, 1991. 13. lbid, Land Use Element•, derived from Figures A-6 and A-8. ' 3-82 9843-JPR-11608-X 1 f, 1 1 ,1 Irvine/Newport Beach General Plan Land Uses �4 D RIOT 0. 1.1 ° '( it '''I' i� "'•z ,\�` \ ''�' i �'' '•� \\ \ i; CITY OF IRVINE MEDIUM DENSITY (I'�•• / :� CITY OF IRVINE,, ' : -' < �;; ,I;;,i, (5-10 DU/AC) � I/ IIII" f � �'�' MEDIUM —HIGH DENSITY .. n• / u fll Ill; II \ ro __ I \� __ _ + , \\ . 1 r 11,1';`,`,,Se�il�"' (10-25 DU/AC) MULTIUSE G„ / < �p'I'll. '%11, o� •\ „'' t(f (ALLOW HIGH OR MEDIUM —HIGH 1(;)1l� DENSITY WITH OTHER USES) f, t�1-HICK' IT1('>y. (.� �r ., (1(��(fl(III;1, •.�� _ f DISTRICT COMMERCIAL I n. . ""� � � I '' ��,� • � /1 \\�" � " �•; i'�� `�\� � � t. •� / _. � Source: City of Irvine General Plan f t• !Ill fl';a��',,, �� l.• �/ .'•� �' ol� ..,ti, '"' �, `/ y " ; • ° \\ ./ (,�'�� 4ri r'� 11P;; �ctt+•al I. \` ��, i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL �11 °° / /// N ySER, �Vf�h 1'flt,I4 "PACE, (0-4 DU/AC) f . ;•� , '`�\\ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ( •y, ,I fi':'', ;ay,, •1 1, \�\ \ •'°;tf ! I�flf'�.:,,I• �,�.,1Y� _ .-"-�j (10.1-15 DU/BUILDABLE ACRE) tit 1•.'" (I„fl it I t'. / ,p\ 1 , i r1' l rcII,, I 1 y — '�.. ' `'. 100 !. I j , t �1 1 \�� - I 1\\ ,.0 /�- Source: City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan LV .\I�(1 t Ifl ,/�+1 •II t' ''\ 't _ i•\ v. I�J � .III tI,.r'°'� • 1 ,4,1+h' I 3 1� \\ �,• 1' :y"• , o '3 , �° I�,�\�/moo °"�i ,_j,., M DIUM.a ENSITY : *rr,. ry�-,'u,,,,4 ��^��L F'..�s� I �+ 1� 1 1 , �C,�'S1 ��1^ / ,�•,, I CITY OF; ham.. �I►4 , r,l�•�°' NEWPORT BEACH I. > 9LSL7 0(1 3 Q // \ RETAIL AND �'n' '\��LCJC,]6 ILtip AAA ( • ...� J SERVICE MM R awn ___•1 '� .!t� Y �'' "'r� S ICE CO E CIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL >�,`� ��1 i FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.5-2 0 350 700 ® THE KEIT© COMPANIES The majority of the study area consists of areas designated for Medium -High Density Residential development with a density standard of 10 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 326 acres are included in this category.14 The eastern portion of the planning area is included within the Medium Density designation, with a density of 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. Separating the Medium -High and Medium Density areas is a strip of land designated as Preservation Open Space. This designation encompasses 171 contiguous acres within Planning Area 26, including the Bonita Canyon Reservoir wetlands and a tributary canyon drainage.15 This designated Open Space resulted from a recent City of Irvine General Plan Amendment (GPA 16), which included various increases in committed open space areas citywide, as mitigation for future development. Zoning - The incorporated City of Irvine lands within the project study area are presently zoned 1.2 Development Reserve and 1.3 Conservation/Open Space Reserve. 16 City of Newport Beach The incorporated area south of the project study area is mostly built out in accordance with the --)e current residential and commercial General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Undeveloped land 41 immediately south of existing Ford Road along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard is planned for medium density residential development. 3.5.2 IMPACTS In this section, roadway realignment alternatives compatibility with existing and planned uses in the project vicinity are evaluated. Project consistency with land use goals and policies in the City of Irvine General Plan are also addressed. Land use compatibility can also be assessed in terms of other impact categories, such as views, light and glare, air quality and noise. Reference is made to Sections 3.4, 3.6, 3.9 and 3.10 for analysis of these impacts. Existing Uses Existing Open Space - Each of the build project alternatives A(D), A(I), A(11), B(D), B(I), and B(II) as well as the Coyote Canyon access road, will result in conversion of vacant land used for cattle grazing to a transportation facility. This conversion, in and of itself, does not represent a significant impact on existing open space or land available for cattle grazing within the City of Irvine. 14. ibid, I.ud Use FJemenp Figure A-16 15. ibid, Lnd Use Elemenq Figure A-17 16. City of Irvine Zoning Map (10/24189). 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-84 Planned Uses Loss of Planned Open Space - Each of the project alternatives will skirt the margins of the Bonita Reservoir, but will traverse its narrow tributary in the Preservation Open Space area designated in the City of Irvine General Plan. Both the A and B alignments cross this narrow drainage in virtually the same location between the Bonita Reservoir and the terminus of existing Ford Road. The area of potential roadway encroachment within this land use designation is approximately 1.0 acres, which represents less than 196 of the Preservation Open Space area within Irvine Planning Area 26. As the City of Irvine General Plan includes an extension of Ford Road in this area and the project design for each alternative includes a bridge crossing at this location, with the roadway elevated out of the flood plain and provisions for trail undercrossings, no significant impacts to planned open space will occur with either Alignment A or B. Business Displacement - The proposed realignment of Ford Road and its associated connector roads will not result in displacement of any existing residential units. Each of the proposed alignments are anticipated to affect portions of the Lange Financial Plaza at the northeast comer of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Lange Financial Corporation held a ground lease from The Irvine Company. Establishment of any of the alternative alignments will require modification and/or removal and relocation of buildings within the Lange complex (Figure 3.5-3). Approximately 8,000 square feet of building area will be removed by each of the alternatives. This represents approximately one third of the total building area at the complex. Road alignments avoid existing parking onsite and no existing parking area will be lost. The displacement of buildings represents a significant adverse impact to the current use of this office complex. (See Section 3.11 Cultural Scientific Resources, for a discussion of impacts and mitigation measures with respect to potential historic values associated with this complex of buildings.) No direct or indirect impacts to the Pacific Bell office building will result from project alternatives. Surrounding Uses - Construction and use of the roadway under either alternative A or B, with direct or indirect connectors, is compatible with surrounding land uses. Either of the alternatives will reduce the roadway use -related impacts of noise, air quality and light and glare which would otherwise be experienced by increased traffic volumes adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods even under the No Build or No Project Alternatives (see Section 5.0.) 9143-1PR.1160! X 345 CI �I u U u PARKNG j (APPROX. 80 SPACES)' 0 ;I YARD AREA I CORRAL , I _^ALK'a1�Y1 AI.IGNIMENT B / / / NT A_r LEGEND 0 ORIGINAL UNIT (1954) SOUTH WING ADDITION (PRIOR TO 1966) 0 EAST WING ADDITION (PRIOR TO 1966) ® NORTH WING ADDITION (MOSTLY PRIOR TO 1966) PEARTREE BUILDING (PRIOR TO 1966) Lange Financial Plaza FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.5-3 THE KEITH COMPANIES 0 Open Space Dedication - Open Space dedication objectives are described in the City of Irvine Land Use Element Implementing Actions Program (Objective A 2). This program ties phased dedication of designated open space to a Compensating Development Program, which includes specified development intensities within Planning Areas and various Implementation Districts of the City. The Ford Road project study area is included within Planning Area 26 and Implementation District M. Planning Area 26 is identified as having a residential intensity range of 210 to 420 units in the Medium Density category, and 632 to 1580 units in the Medium High Density category. While Ford Road alignments A and B with direct or indirect connectors may affect ultimate residential yields differently within PA 26, none of the alternatives are anticipated to require residential densities which drop below (or exceed) the ranges specified in the Land Use Element for Planning Area 26. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to land use goals and objectives, open space preservation objectives or future open space dedication opportunities are anticipated. Agricultural Lands - The proposed alternative alignments of Ford Road do not traverse existing farmland identified by the State Department of Conservation. Planned Roadway - Ford Road is depicted as a primary arterial highway (44ane divided) on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways for the County of Orange. This designation continues from MacArthur Boulevard to the proposed interchange with SR-73. The proposed project is consistent with this designation. Implementation of any of alignment alternatives will have the effect of increasing total land area devoted to arterial roadway use in Irvine Planning Area 26 relative to the No Project, or No Build alternatives. This impact, in itself, is not considered significant, nor does it represent incompatibility with Land Use Element plans and policies. Construction of a selected alternative alignment could adversely affect development plans in other ways, however, For example: Alternatives A(D), A(I) and A(II) divide a coherent future Medium -High Density residential site with regional through traffic. Alternative B(D) creates small triangular parcels west of Newport Hills Drive West and east of San Miguel Drive which are constrained for future Medium -High Density Residential development due to narrow shapes and/or topography. o Alternative B(I) creates a small triangular parcel east of the easterly indirect connector which is contained for future Medium High Density Residential development (this constraint is removed with the BiIl) Alternative). 9943-MR-116064 347 Therefore, implementation of either of the alternative alignments combinations could in ' varying degrees, divide land areas and possibly reduce the development potential and/or design continuity of the overall study area. This is considered a potential significant environmental impact only insofar as it may or may not reduce the ability to achieve various Land Use ' Element goals and objectives for the Planning Area. The Coyote Canyon Road access alternatives C-3 and C-5 cross a future Medium Density ' Residential area and are compatible with this land use designation. Either of these alternatives would represent a beneficial impact by providing access to planned future recreational use of the landfill site. ' Summary of Impacts Ford Road extension and realignment alternatives will alter established local circulation patterns serving nearby neighborhoods. However, this alteration will facilitate continued local ' residential access while discouraging regional traffic through and adjacent to established neighborhoods along existing Ford Road, San Miguel Drive and Newport Bills Drive West. With alternatives A(I), A(11), or B(Il) through traffic will be further discouraged by truncating ' San Miguel Drive at the existing Ford Road without direct access to the realigned Ford Road. Therefore, no significant impacts to the character of neighborhoods are anticipated to result from the realignment of Ford Road under those alternatives, and no significant adverse impacts ' to neighborhood circulation patterns are anticipated. An extension of Ford Road is included within the General Plans of both the City of Newport ' Beach and City of Irvine. While either realignment alternative with connectors will divide future residential planning areas, this division is not anticipated to require future plan amendments and development intensities which deviate from ranges in the current City of ' Irvine Land Use Element. Alternatives A(D), A(1), A(Il), B(D), B(I), are compatible with adjacent City General Plan ' land use designations. With appropriate mitigation (i.e., application of City of Irvine Standard Conditions of Approval) included in any future development of this area (i.e., setback or berms to mitigate air, noise and visual impacts), the Ford Road project will be consistent with ' proposed uses. None of the alignment alternatives will adversely impact planned open space or conflict with ' open space dedication objectives. The Coyote Canyon Road access will facilitate implementation of County Land use plans by providing access to a future recreational site. ' This is a beneficial impact of the proposed project. L ' 9843-IPR-11608-X 3-88 k 3.5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 43. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, the project applicant shall assure adequate compensation for any property acquired, removed and relocated as a result of realignment and extension of Ford Road. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 44. On an ongoing basis, the City of Irvine will review future development applications for land uses adjacent Ford Road realignment and extension alternatives. Mitigation measures in the form of standard conditions of approval will be applied to such developments to assure that the use -related impacts of noise, air quality, views, light and glare and aesthetics are reduced to insignificant levels. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D)9 B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). No further land use measures are required. Please refer to Sections 3.4 Aesthetics, 3.6 Light and Glare, 3.9 Air Quality and 3.10 Noise for mitigation measures for related impacts. 3.5.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant and unavoidable adverse land use impacts with implementation of the , foregoing mitigation measures. 1 11 1 I I I 9843-JPa-11606 X 3-99 ' 1 I ' 3.6 LIGHT AND GLARE ' 3.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Light and glare are either direct (focused) or diffuse. Glare is reflected light. Generally, a smooth and glossy surface has greater reflectivity than an irregular and dull finish. Likewise, light colors are more reflective than dark colors. A larger surface area will have more ' reflection than a small surface area of the same finish. Light and glare travel in straight rays. The direction of light and glare can be easily controlled with use of opaque surfaces which are impenetrable by light and change direction of light rays. Currently, the largely undeveloped study area produces no significant light or glare. Study area contribution to area night lighting is limited to buildings and parking lots of the Lange ' Financial Plaza and Pacific Bell Central Office building. Surrounding areas producing light and glare include residences, Newport Hills Shopping Center, adjacent roads (Newport Coast ' Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road, San Miguel Drive), local streets and automobiles. Light and glare associated with automobiles is from through traffic and local traffic. Lighting from these sources results in direct and diffuse artificial illumination during dawn, dusk and ' evening hours produced by interior and exterior building lights, street lights, parking lot lights and automobile lights. Glare in the project vicinity is produced by reflected light from surfaces and exterior finishes. Automobiles, pavement and buildings all contribute to glare in the project vicinity. Existing glare is from pavement in parking areas, automobiles and building windows (glazing). ' Neither the Lange Financial Plaza, nor Pacific Bell facility include significant exterior glazing. Direct light and glare effects from the study area on the surrounding area are limited. The study area currently contributes diffuse light to the project vicinity but is not a direct source of ' light for surrounding land uses, as light fixtures and landscaping provide opaque barriers which confine light to the study area. The developed portion of the study area contributes to, but is not a significant source of, direct and diffuse glare in the project vicinity; exterior ' building materials and surfaces are not highly reflective. 3.6.2 IMPACTS tImplementation of the project will remove an existing limited source of light and glare with displacement and possible relocation of buildings within the Lange Financial Plaza. This is not a significant impact of the project. 11 ' 9943-JPR-11609-X 3-90 The realignment and extension of Ford Road will also add new sources of light and glare to the study area by increasing the number of street light fixtures, headlights from vehicular traffic, and by addition of reflective (paved and smooth) surfaces. In addition, the realignment and extension of Ford Road would reduce light and glare along some segments of existing Ford Road, as traffic on existing Ford Road would be reduced. Direct access to MacArthur Boulevard from existing Ford Road would be eliminated, and most through traffic would be on the realigned and extended Ford Road, Therefore, light glare from traffic on existing Ford Road would be mainly from local traffic. Though the total number of arterial and connector street lights would be expected to increase with the length of roadway (i.e. Alignment AD longest, Alignment BI shortest), no significant light and glare impacts are discernible among the alternatives. Impacts of these new sources of light and glare will be both direct and indirect. Direct effects would result from unimpeded rays of light or reflected light on sensitive receptors. Indirect effects are from spillover of directed lights into sensitive areas and are diffuse. Sensitive receptors include single-family residences opposite proposed direct and indirect connector intersections with existing Ford Road, northeast facing residences at the elevated perimeter of Harbor View Knoll, and wildlife within existing open space habitat areas. No significant direct impacts are anticipated. All street lights on the realigned and extended Ford Road and related connectors will be directed toward activities on the roadway in accordance with the City of Irvine street lighting standards. Automobile lights will also be directed toward the roadway. To the extent the project alternatives would increase the number of lane miles and disperse traffic within the area relative to the No Project alternative (see Section 5,0), these build alternatives would result in increased potential for both light and glare effects on existing and future residential uses. However, residences abutting existing Ford Road will be screened from potential intrusion of headlights at connector intersections by an existing block wall and trees within both the parkway and rear yards. Light and glare effects on future Multi -Use and Medium -High Density Residential uses can be mitigated through proper site planning and residential design. Indirect spillover lighting will increase diffuse light and glaze in areas adjacent to the realigned and extended Ford Road; however this increase is not considered significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. 3.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Though no significant adverse light and glare impacts are anticipated, the following measure is recommended to further minimize impacts. 9943-01.116WX 3-91 29. Prior to issuance of construction permits, final design plans shall show that project lighting is in conformance with City of Irvine lighting and spacing standards. (Alignments A(D), A(I) A(I1), AI2, B(D) B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5, and No Project). 3.6.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant and unavoidable adverse land use impacts with implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures. 9843-JPR-11608-X 1 3-92 26 29 1 3.7 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 3.7.1 EXISTING There are no existing public recreational facilities located in the realignment and extension project study area. Approximately 200 acres of the 270 acre project area are undeveloped and used for cattle grazing. The City of Irvine General Plan designates approximately 4 acres as Preservation Open Space along the eastern boundary, including Bonita Reservoir in the study area vicinity. The remainder of the study area is planned for future development at a density of 10 to 25 dwelling units per acre, resulting in conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. Trails Trails in the area are designated by the County of Orange, Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways, the City of Newport Beach, Bikeways Map, and the City of Irvine, Irvine Area Bicycle Trails Map. Please refer to Figure 3.7-1. The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways shows three planned bikeways adjacent to the project study area. County -designated Class I trails (off -road) are located along the south side of Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard and along the south side of Newport Coast Drive east of Coyote Canyon Road. The Master Plan of Arterial Highways also shows a planned Class 11 trail (on -road) along Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Coast Drive (formerly Bonita Canyon Drive) which is planned for construction with the extension of Bison Avenue. Currently, County -designated Class H Trails (on -road) exist along the south side of Ford Road and along San Miguel Drive between existing Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Bike trails along the south side of Ford Road and the west side of MacArthur Boulevard (north of Ford Road) are designated on the City of Newport Beach Bike Ways Map as Bike Lanes and a Sidewalk Bikeway; existing trails on both Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard are striped (on -street) Bike Lanes. In addition, the City of Newport Beach Bike Ways Maps shows Sidewalk Bikeways along both sides of MacArthur Boulevard south of Ford Road and along the Harbor View Homes greenbelt area south of existing Ford Road (between Newport Hills Drive east and west). The City of Irvine, area Bicycle Trails Map, designates the trail on the north side of Ford Road as a Class H On Street Bicycle Trail. This Plan also designates Class I Off -Street Bicycle Trails near segments of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. 9843-JM-1IW8 X 3-93 (4) I .J 1: � i j P � .� '9.� _ ,• 1 1'I p�� 1st". `�� i\ 'II 1� .\>�-ii i'ii .I+`\t'a �. �• a„a ��7f'":-:;�!�Ij�.:,fr�� r'�/)ii�''y. 1, ' ac is `' T h, nil\\ :d>• .Ps6. !'' t , ,/� 1 f• �( �L/.�--`;` `�• __ _ ^`� I �' 1 � �\.i t II � .,,q} 1./r �.l- r.' ILi /-, il� _, , i c>4t V I .� I;; 'i- !•0.'\ (�-`\ 4'1'• ,r' III i�Cf, "`.. 4. V. ia• t1:��{. 1 ,k''`�\�\�a� '� ,,I `v1 � ,i� rl �.r•\pt.Jl I All fi • . `. I,41 :; • .0 -1t,f •Ills;_, +"'r ,�"r' \p d • (2) (1) (y) � g , 1_... _:-__�_s�� '.7 ,fit. •: .. : 'r .- ""' =- '�- � � GI mina snu .Inanwu un i c Tnnusannrerinu cnnmm�a (4) �4 r� 1 ` { r. Trails LEGEND PROJECT LIMITS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: . (1) ■•ou■ SIDEWALK BKEWAY (2) ••••••4 BIKE LANES SOURCE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, BIKEWAYS MAP, 1986 CITY OF IRVW. .• R\* (3) ■oom••■ CLASS I - OFF STREET `� BICYCLE TRAM. i ;-� (4) •••••• CLASS I - ON STREET ;= BICYCLE TRAIL SOURCE: CITY OF IRVINE, IRVINE AREA BICYCLE TRAILS �\ "%"� `:\• MAP, 1989 '. COUNTY OF ORANGE: (5) CLASS I TRAIL - OFF ROAD (6) 000000❑ CLASS I TRAIL - ON ROAD, STRIPED LANES SOURCE: COUNTY OF ORANGE, MASTER PLAN OF COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAYS, 1988 r. Lillit:+l?�4,�� ,, •;� ` v ;r _� ' ;:, :;+:4• FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT I TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.7-1 165 660 ® THE KEITH COMPANIES 0 330 990 ('' Parks and Recreation Regionally significant park facilities in the vicinity of the study area include William R. Mason Park (City of Irvine) Newport Dunes aquatic park (City of Newport Beach) and Corona del Mar Beach State Park (Corona del Mar). The Coyote Canyon landfill site is planned as a recreational facility. Local neighborhood and community parks in the vicinity of the study area include: 1) Buffalo Hills Park (includes athletic fields, ball diamonds, parking, picnic tables, restrooms and turf area) located at Newport Hills Drive East/West at Ford Road in the City of Newport Beach 2) San Miguel Park (includes athletic fields, ball diamonds, basketball courts, parking, play equipment, picnic tables, racquetball courts, restrooms and turf area) located at San Miguel Drive at Spyglass Hill Road in the City of Newport Beach; 3) Turtle Rock Community Park (includes multi -use building, restrooms, child play area, open play area, amphitheater, hiking trails, soccer/football fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, ball diamonds, bicycle trail, bar-b-ques, and group picnic areas and tables) located at 1 Sunnyhill Drive in the City of Irvine; 4) Bommer Canyon (includes an amphitheater, concession stand, and group picnic areas and tables) located in the City of Irvine; and, 5) Chaparral Park (including child play area, open play area, hiking trails, fitness par course, bicycle trail, and bar-b-ques) located at 19032 Turtle Rock Drive in the City of Irvine. 3.7.2 IMPACTS Project implementation would convert existing cattle grazing land to paved roadway; however, this area is committed to future development according to the City of Irvine General Plan and will eventually be fully developed. The following Table 3.7-1 indicates conversion of undeveloped land in acres according to project alternatives: TABLE 3.7-1 I Q97(IR9:100339:1161(Oi`►fuIDIM AREA CONVERSION BY ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE APPROXIMATE PAVED ALIGNMENT ACREAGE 9843-rPR-11608-X Ford Road (with Connectors) A(D) 39 A(I) 36 B(II) 34 B(D) 33 B(i) 31 B(II) 30 Coyote Canyon Road C-3 22 C-5 28 3-95 1I Implementation of the B(I1) alignment with the C-3 Coyote Canyon Road would result in the least area of paved roadway. Implementation of the AD alternative with the C-5 Coyote ' Canyon Road alignment would result in the greatest area of paved roadway. Conversion of existing open space for any of the project alternatives is considered insignificant, as most of the study area is planned for urbanization. ' Implementation of any of the proposed alignments would traverse the planned Preservation Open Space area located along the eastern edge of the project study area. As a bridge is ' planned at this location spanning the open space corridor and allowing a potential riding and hiking through -connection, this encroachment is considered an insignificant impact. Roadway ' development is allowed under the City of Irvine Preservation Open Space designation. Implementation of any of the proposed alternatives would not directly impact existing or planned bikeways along MacArthur Boulevard or Bison Avenue. Along existing Ford Road at its interchange with MacArthur Boulevard, a portion of the existing bikeway would be removed with implementation of a cul-de-sac at this location. This is not considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact with implementation of recommended mitigation ' measures. Bike lanes and/or paths proposed in conjunction with the project will be designed and constructed in conformance with County and City of Irvine standards. Roadway plans indicate Class II On Street Bicycle trails to be implemented along realigned and extended Ford Road and associated connectors. Implementation of any of the proposed alternatives includes eight - foot wide bikeways along the A or B alignments and along indirect or direct connector roads. None of the project alternatives would directly or adversely impact existing or planned local and regional parks. Implementation of AI, All or BI, BIl would increase light and glare at the greenbelt and bike path which is part of Buffalo Hills Park. The park is not lighted to , discourage evening use, and project impacts with regard to light and glare are considered insignificant. The project will provide continued access to the Coyote Canyon Landfill site to facilitate possible future development of the site for recreation. This is a direct positive ' impact. 3.7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 45. Prior to issuance of construction permits, final design plans shall show that project lighting is in conformance with City of Irvine lighting and spacing standards. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(R), B(I2), C-3, C-5, and No Project). 46. Prior to approval of final design engineering, project plans shall show a bike lane connection between existing on -street bike lanes on the east side of MacArthur ' Boulevard and the south side of Ford Road where the cul-de-sac is proposed to replace the existing MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road intersection. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9943-IPA-11606 X 3-96 III 47. Prior to final held inspection and approval, on -street bike lanes shall be striped along all segments of the project alignment, connector roads and the bike lane connector described above in mitigation measure 1 to the satisfaction of the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. (Alignments A(D), A(), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(1), 13(I1), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 3.7.4. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant and unavoidable adverse recreation/open space impacts with implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-97 I I 3.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 3.8.1 EXISTING Following is a summary of the Ford Road Extension and Realignment Traffic Analysis, dated January, 1992, and prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. The analysis area for the ' project encompasses portions of five jurisdictions as illustrated in Figure 3.8-1, including Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Newport Coast, and unincorporated Orange County. The study includes analysis of numerous area intersections with locations illustrated in Figure 3.8- 2. The study is included in its entirety in Appendix D. To provide supporting traffic data for the proposed project, this traffic analysis examines Ford Road for long-range (year 2010) conditions. Existing conditions are first presented and then forecasts for 2010 are analyzed, corresponding to buildout of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements for the surrounding cities (Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa) and unincorporated County area. The Base Case circulation system assumed in this analysis is generally consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). An exception to the MPAH is San Joaquin Hills Road east of Marguerite, assumed as four lanes instead of six, because, the City of Newport Beach has petitioned the County of Orange to revise the MPAH from six lanes to four lanes. Also, the proposed project represents a change from the MPAH which depicts a direct connection of Ford Road to San Miguel Drive. The Base Case in this analysis ' assumed indirect connection consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element (ie. Alternatives A([) or B(I)). The alternative of a direct connection of Ford Road to San Miguel Drive as depicted in the MPAH and the City of Irvine General Plan ' Circulation Element, is also discussed (ie. Alternatives A(D) and B(D)). Under these assumptions, two specific subject areas were addressed in this traffic analysis: 1. Long-range traffic volumes on existing and realigned Ford Road, and resulting t capacity needs. 2. Levels of service for direct and indirect connections of Ford Road to San Miguel Drive. Other alternatives to the proposed configuration of Ford Road are unrelated to the manner in ' which it is connected to San Miguel Drive, but are related to the proposed alignment of the roadway itself. These are evaluated in EIR Section 5.0, and include a "No Build" alternative 9643•JPR-11606 X 3.98 ' 11 where the buildout configuration of Ford Road is not changed from the existing configuration (no realignment and no connection to the SJHTC), and a "No Project" alternative (NOAH configuration —no realignment but with extension of Ford Road to SJHTC). Other alternatives in EIR Section 5.0 include a realignment of Ford Road connecting to MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and Ford Road, and a realignment of Ford Road connecting directly to Bison Avenue. Traffic Forecast Data and Related Studies Traffic forecast data was derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The land use database used in the NBTAM is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Elements for the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa, and unincorporated Orange County. NBTAM is a sub -area model of the County's OCTAM H model and is refined for the City of Newport Beach. The traffic analysis carried out here recognizes the transportation interrelationships with the surrounding region. Traffic forecasts are made within an appropriate regional context which includes both local and regional travel components. Related studies that are significant as far as this traffic analysis is concerned are as follows: SJHTC EIR - An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). Traffic volumes for the Corridor given in this document were taken from that EIR. Traffic volumes on arterials given in the EIR report may differ from the arterial volumes given in this document. Two different traffic models were used; and, the land use data for these models are also different. Detailed land use data was used in the NBTAM compared to regional demographic data that was utilized for the Corridor analysis. The detailed land use database includes recent updates from the City of Irvine and the most recent long-range projections in the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach General Plan Traffic Analysis - In July 1988, a traffic analysis was prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan update. The NBTAM was used to prepare traffic forecasts for this document and NBTAM distribution patterns were taken from the County's OCTAM model. Traffic volumes in this document differ somewhat from those volumes in that they are based on the County's "OCTAM-H" distribution patterns and are based on the most recent land use data from the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. Definitions Terms and abbreviations used throughout this section are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: 9843.JPR-11608-X 3-99 ADT Average Daily Traffic. ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A factor used to measure the volume/capacity ratio for an intersection and to determine its level of service. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments or intersection ICU values. The levels range from "A" to "F", with LOS "A" representing free flow traffic and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. PEAK HOUR This generally refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7- 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3.6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are travelling on a given roadway. WC Volume -to -Capacity Ratio. This is typically described as a percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of roadway or an intersection. 9943-JPR-11609-X 3-100 m m m m� m m r m m m m = = m m r NBTAM Jurisdictions FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.8-1 ® THE KEIT© COMPANIES Existing_HiEhway Network Existing Ford Road is currently a four -lane facility which is planned for extension to an approved interchange with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) according to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Newport Coast Drive, a new roadway linidng Pacific Coast Highway south of Corona Del Mar to MacArthur Boulevard at old Bonita Canyon Drive, opened for travel in November 1991. At the same time, San Joaquin Hills Road which was extended eastward to connect to Newport Coast Drive was also opened. Existing traffic count data in this section of the EIR was collected prior to the opening of these roadway (future traffic forecasts for both are included, however.) As shown in Figure 3.8-3, 1990 ADT Volumes, Ford Road currently carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive. Peak intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for existing study area intersections are presented in Table 3.8-1 and summarized as follows: ICU's of .91 or greater (Levels of Service E and F) are considered unacceptable. Based on existing traffic patterns, the ICU results indicate capacity problems at MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Coast Drive in the AM and PM peak hours (ICU's of 1.09 and .98 respectively), and at Marguerite and Pacific Coast Highway in the AM and PM peak hours (ICU's of .91 and 1.00, respectively). Capacity deficiencies also occur in the AM peak hour at MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue (ICU of .98), and at Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway (ICU of .91). Future (Year 2010) Highway One component of the 2010 circulation system of significance to this area is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The SJHTC is scheduled to open for traffic in 1995 and will be first constructed as a six -lane facility, with two additional lanes for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) completed by 2010. The MPAH includes the extension of Ford Road from its current terminus east of Hillside Drive in the City of Newport Beach to a full interchange with the SJHTC in the City of Irvine. Assumptions for future year (2010) conditions include implementation of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the General Plan Circulation Elements of the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, but without a realignment of Ford Road. (It should be noted that the Circulation Elements of both cities depict an extension of Ford Road.) Traffic forecast data is derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The land use database used in the NBTAM is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Elements for the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa and unincorporated Orange County. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-103 NOTE: INSERT SHOWS BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONNECTOR ROAD OPTIONS ZiUUMUh: AUSI IN•FOUST ASSOC., INC. 1990 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM CITIES OF NEWPORT BEACH AND FMNE 1990 ADT Volumes (000"s) FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COWANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES TABLE 3.8-1 EXISTING ICU SUMMARY IMRSECTION AM PM 34. Jamboree and University .71 .70 35. Jamboree and Bison .64 .59 36. MacArthur and Bonita Canyon 1.09 .98 (Newport Coast) 37. MacArthur and Bison .98 .74 38. Jamboree and Ford .58 .59 39. MacArthur and Ford .72 .61 40. Jamboree and SJH Road .66 .58 41. Jamboree and Santa Barbara .59 .57 42. Jamboree and PCH .91 .78 43. Santa Cruz and and SJH Road .27 .36 44. Santa Rosa and SJH Road .28 .45 45. MacArthur and SJH Road .65 .78 46. MacArthur and San Miguel .67 .85 47. Newport Center and PCH .47 .44 49. MacArthur and PCH .52 .71 50. San Miguel and SJH Road .50 .46 52. Marguerite and SJH Road .51 .66 53. Marguerite and PCH .91 1.00 130. San Miguel and Ford .39 .35 135. Newport Hills W and Ford .39 .34 139. Newport Hills E and Ford .36 .29 Notes: (1) See Intersection Location Map for intersection identification number. (2) Traffic Count Data Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Winter/Spring 1990. (3) Level of Service Ranges: Go- .60 A .61 - .70 B .71- .80 C .81 - .90 D .91- 1.00 E Above 1.00 F 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-105 Another new facility included in the 2010 circulation system in addition to Newport Coast Drive is Sand Canyon Avenue. Sand Canyon Avenue is planned as a two-lane commuter arterial between Pacific Coast highway and the SJHTC, and a four -lane divided arterial north of the SJHTC to future Michelson Drive in the City of Irvine. In addition to the construction of these new facilities, several existing facilities will be extended to attain their full Master Plan status. Bison Avenue was recently extended as a two- lane temporary road from Newport Coast Drive to California Avenue on the University of California, Irvine (UCI) campus. It will ultimately be constructed as a four -lane primary and will be extended to MacArthur Boulevard from Newport Coast Drive. The extension of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road from its terminus at Spyglass Hill Road to Newport Coast Drive was recently completed and will ultimately be extended to the future San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor according to the City of Irvine General Plan Circulation Element and the County MPAH. The southward extension of Culver Drive to the SJHTC has also been assumed. While included in the County MPAH, it is not part of the City of Irvine General Plan Circulation Element and 2010 forecasts without this extension are included in Appendix D. With an extension of Ford Road to the SJHTC without a realignment, according to the current MPAH, daily traffic volumes on Ford Road east of San Miguel Drive would be 25,000 VPD (Figure 3.8-4). This is the 'No Project' Alternative evaluated as Alternative 2 in EIR Section 5.0. Within the total NBTAM analysis area ADT trip generation is estimated to increase by approximately 54 percent between 1990 and 2010. This localized increase will affect the traffic demand on Ford Road as will regional increases outside NBTAM. Table 3.8-2 includes a comparison between existing and future ICU's in the study area with the No Project Alternative (ie. current WAR extension of Ford Road to S)IffC without a realignment). 9843-IPR-11606-X 3-106 JS ,� �7 o c s 7 49 T 139 _ \ No' gy ry 138 � 19 rn 136 � s cn 28 'S'S N �17e� NCB s 77 l s Y rn 24 F�'9 s 0 2 F 113 YZ xataoar mDAM 3 W� BAY 19 11 c N ? 76 $ 17 Fi 14 14 SAH c� 13 J tiRr I Y � 1 54 46 / Q�Q COAST g2 3 / A 32 36 HIGHWAY = Intersection Deficiency Future 2010 ADT Volumes (000's) figure:3.8-4 Without Project FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES TABLE 3.8-2 EXISTING AND FUTURE (2010) ICU SUMMARY (No Project) FUTURE (2010) IlV I ERSECTION EXISTING AM jM WINO AM PROJECT IM 34. Jamboree and University .71 .70 .66 .87 35. JamboreeandBison .64 .59 .61 .78 36. MacArthur and Newport Coast* 1.09 .98 -- - 37. MacArthur and Bison .98 .74 .72 .81 38. Jamboree and Ford .58 .59 .87 .92 39. MacArthur and Ford .72 .61 .57 .83 40. Jamboree and SJH Road .66 .58 .74 .78 41. Jamboree and Santa Barbara .59 .57 .60 .70 42. Jamboree and PCH .91 .78 .77 .80 43. Santa Cruz and SJH Road .27 .36 .36 .41 44. Santa Rosa and SJH Road .28 .45 .29 .46 45. MacArthur and SJH Road 65 .78 .64 .80 46. MacArthur and San Miguel .67 .85 .75 .71 47. Newport Center and PCH 47 .44 .52 .40 49. MacArthur and PCH .52 .71 .54 .54 50. San Miguel and SJH Road .50 .46 .54 .59 52. Marguerite and SJH Road .51 .66 .59 .47 53. Marguerite and PCH .91 1.00 .74 .74 58. Newport Coast & PCH - - .53 .67 59, Spyglass Hill & SJH Rd - - .44 .34 60. San Miguel & Spyglass Hill - - .17 .22 63. Gabrielino & Bonita Cyn. y - .81 .81 64. Culver Dr. & Bonita Cyn. - - .58 .64 65. Newport Coast & SJH Rd. - - .74 .66 66. Bison & SJHTC EB Ramps - - .68 .67 67. Bison & SJHTC WB Ramps - - .54 .60 68. Ford & SJHTC EB Ramps - - .37 .74 69. Ford & SJHTC WB Ramps - - .57 .60 71. Newport Coast&SJHTC EB Ramps - - .47 .74 73. Newport Coast&SJHTC WB Ramps - - .54 .54 74. Sand Cyn.&SJHTC EB Ramps - - .61 .69 75. Sand Cyn.& SJHTC WB Ramps - - .68 .58 128, Indirect W & Ford - - - - 129. Indirect W & New Ford - - - - 130. San Miguel & Ford - - .36 .61 131. Indirect E & New Ford - - - - 133. New Ford & Bison - - - - 9943-7PR.1160$-X 3.106 FUTURE (2010) EXISTING W/NO PROJECT AM PM AM PM 135. Newport Hills W & Ford - - .64 .51 137. Indirect E & Ford - - - - 139. Newport Hills E & Ford - - .41 .43 140. MacArthur & New Ford - - - - Notes: (1) See Intersection Location Map. (2) Traffic Count Data Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Winter/Spring 1990. (3) Level of Service Ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F * Replaced by corridor alignment. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-109 Future levels of service based on ICU's at some interchanges will significantly improve despite increased future traffic volumes due to implementation of area -wide circulation improvements, whereas level of service at other intersections will be reduced in the future. Following is a summary of the significant changes anticipated: Future LOS at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue intersection significantly improves (from LOS E to LOS C) and will operate acceptably during the AM peak hour. Future LOS at this intersection will deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak hour. LOS at Jamboree and Ford Road will, change from LOS A to LOS D during the AM peak hour but is still considered acceptable. The LOS at this intersection will change from LOS A to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The San Miguel and Ford Road intersection will remain at LOS A and will operate at an acceptable level of service. Both Newport Hills West and Newport Hills East intersections with Ford Road will operate acceptably and willremain at LOS A. 3.8.2 IMPACTS For the local vicinity, the purpose of the realignment and extension of Ford Road is to reduce future traffic on San Miguel Drive by providing indirect connections to detour regional through traffic from using San Miguel Drive. Implementation of the proposed project would remove direct access between existing Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. A standard cul-de-sac would be constructed just east of MacArthur Boulevard at existing Ford Road. Multiple vehicular turning movements between existing Ford Road, a connector road, and a realigned new Ford Road would be required to make the connection between Newport Beach residential neighborhoods (e.g. Harbor View Homes, Harbor View Knoll, Seawind etc.) and MacArthur Boulevard or the SJHTC. This is not considered a significant adverse impact of the project. Construction of the SJHTC will remove access to Coyote Canyon Landfill from Newport Coast Drive. The proposed project includes a replacement access road to the former Coyote Canyon landfill site. This will assure long term access to the site, including any future recreational uses at the site, and is therefore considered a beneficial impact of the project. 9643-JPR 1160MX 3.110 II li TRAFFIC FORECASTS WITH PROJECT Traffic volumes on the study area circulation system were estimated for 2010 conditions. The Base Case circulation system assumed in this analysis is consistent with the County Master Plan of Arterial highways (N PAH). Exceptions to the MPAH are San Joaquin Hills Road east of Marguerite, assumed here as four lanes instead of six (according to the City of Newport Beach petition to the County to revise the MPAH), and the Ford Road indirect connection to San Miguel Drive. While the MPAH and the City of Irvine General Plan Circulation Element depicts a direct connection of Ford Road to San Miguel Drive, the Base Case in this analysis assumes an indirect connection consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element (forecasts for a direct connection are also provided in this section). (Figure 3.8-5). Ford/San Miguel Indirect Connection (Base Case) - Alternative B(D The 2010 Base Case average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Alignment B of Ford Road with an indirect connection to San Miguel Drive are illustrated in Figure 3.8-5. As shown, daily volumes on realigned Ford Road are expected to increase by approximately 16,000 vehicles per day (VPD), from 12,000 VPD in 1990 to approximately 28,000 VPD in 2010. The corresponding peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values are summarized in Table 3.8-3. Lane configurations used in these calculations are based on current City and County General Plans. An Intersection Location Map is given in Figure 3.8-2. The ICU's assume a vehicle capacity of 1,700 per lane per hour and include a five percent clearance interval, consistent with the methodology used by the County of Orange. An ICU of .90 (Level of Service "D") is generally taken as the maximum level of service (LOS) desirable for an intersection, and at 1.00 the theoretical absolute capacity of the intersection has been reached. As such, the only peak hour deficiency occurs in the PM peak hour at Jamboree Road and Ford Road (ICU of .93). 9843-IPR-11608-X 3-111 11 11 1 I TABLE 3.8-3 2010 ICU SUMMARY - BASE (Alternative BI) INTERSECTION AM PM 34. Jamboree & University .68 .86 35. Jamboree & Bison .60 .74 37. MacArthur & Bison .62 .78 38. Jamboree & Ford .83 .93 39. MacArthur & Ford .55 .83 40. Jamboree & SJH Rd .74 .78 41. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .61 .70 42. Jamboree & PCH .77 .80 43. Santa Cruz & SJH Rd. .35 .41 44. Santa Rosa & SJH Rd .29 .47 45. MacArthur & SJH Rd .66 .83 46. MacArthur & San Miguel .73 .71 47. Newport Center & PCH .52 .41 49. MacArthur & PCH .55 .54 50. San Miguel & SJH Rd .53 .57 52. Marguerite & SJH Rd .58 .46 53. Marguerite & PCH .74 .75 58. Newport Coast & PCH .52 .67 59. Spyglass Hill & SJH Rd .42 .31 60. San Miguel & Spyglass Hill .14 .18 63. Gabrielino & Bonita Cyn .82 .81 64. Culver Dr.& Bonita Cyn .58 .62 65. Newport Coast & SJH Rd .74 .67 66. Bison & SJHTC EB Ramps .63 .67 67. Bison & SJHTC WB Ramps .53 .57 68. Ford & SJHTC EB Ramps .40 .74 69. Ford & SJHTC WB Ramps .69 .67 71. Newport Coast & SJHTC EB .48 .74 73. Newport Coast & SJHTC WB .54 .54 74. Sand Cyn & SJHTC EB Ramps .60 .68 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-113 75. Sand Cyn & SJHTC WB Ramps 128, Indirect W & Ford 129. Indirect W & New Ford 130. San Miguel & Ford 131. Indirect E & New Ford 137. Indirect E & Ford 139. Newport Hills E & Ford Notes: 1. See Intersection Location Map 2. Level of Service ranges: 9843.JM-11W&X 3.114 AM PM .69 .59 .27 .22 .72 .60 .23 X .58 .83 .32 .40 .16 .18 .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F n Ford/San Miguel Indirect Connection (Project Alternative) - Alternative AM The selection of a preferred alignment for Ford Road will impact project access for the development planned in the City of Irvine General Plan Land Use Element between MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road and the SJHTC. For the Base Case (Alternative Bl), development of most of the study area is assumed to occur north of the realigned roadway. For Alternative A(I), however, development of approximately 1200 residential units would occur between ' realigned Ford Road and existing Ford Road. Traffic volume changes of any importance between the two alignments would only occur at two intersections: New Ford Road at Newport Hills Drive West and East. However, both intersections operate at acceptable levels of service ' regardless of the chosen alignment. ' Ford/San Miguel Direct Connection (Project Alternative) -Alternative B(D) ' The Base Case assumption of an indirect connection of Ford Road to San Miguel Drive is changed in this alternative to reflect a direct connection as shown in the County MPAH and the City of Irvine General Plan Circulation Element. Figure 3.8-5 illustrates the resulting ADT volumes with this alternative network. Compared to the Base Case, the effects of this change are largely localized, with increases of up 1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on San Miguel Drive south of Ford Road, and a corresponding 1,000 VPD reduction on realigned ' Ford Road west of San Miguel Drive and on MacArthur Boulevard' south of realigned Ford Road. Peak hour impacts of this alternative are also largely localized. ICU values for those intersections affected by this alternative are summarized in Table 3.8-4 (only nominal changes occur to other intersections in the analysis area). As would be expected, a slight increase in ' traffic occurs at San Miguel Drive and existing Ford Road although the ICU value does not change. ICU increases occur at the MacArthur Boulevard intersection with Ford Road, and at San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill. Slight reductions occur at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. ' Alternatives B(11) and B(12) Two alternatives to the base case circulation system (Alternative BI) are discussed below. ' Both are illustrated in Figure 3.8-6. The first, Alternative B(Il) assumes the eastern indirect connector would not be constructed and all travel to realigned Ford Road would occur from ' the western indirect connector. The second assumes the basic B(I) circulation system, but the section of existing Ford Road between San Miguel Drive and the existing commercial driveway is closed. This modification would prohibit direct travel between San Miguel Drive ' and the eastern indirect connector to realigned Ford Road. 9843-IPR-11608-X 3-115 U 1� The peak hour impacts of these alternatives are summarized in Table 3.8-5. Because both alternatives assume reduced access, the ICU values at several intersections are increased and the intersection of Indirect Connector West and New Ford Road would operate with a deficiency under Alternative B(I2) (ICU of .94 in the FM peak hour). TABLE 3.94 ICU SUMMARY (Alternative BD) ALT.B(I) INDIRECT CONNECTION AM PM ALT.B(D) DU ECT CONNECTION AM PM 39. MacArthur & Ford .55 .83 .56 .86 45. MacArthur & SJH Rd 66 .83 .66 .82 46. MacArthur & San Miguel .73 .71 .73 .71 50. San Miguel & SJH Rd 53 .57 .52 .57 60. San Miguel & Spyglass Hill .14 .18 .14 .19 130. San Miguel & Ford .23 .27 .22 .27 134. Newport Hills W & New Ford -- -- .75 .65 135. Newport Hills W & Ford -- -- .32 .30 136. San Miguel & New Ford -- -- 57 .82 139. Newport Hills E & Ford .16 .18 .16 .16 Notes: 1. See Intersection Location Map. 2. Level of Service Ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71- .80 C .81- .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F 9943-IM-11606-X 3-116 ALT. B(I) smic DU � ALIGNMENT "B" WITH INDIRECT CONNECTION .'a00 s 490 DU TSF OFFICE '� • \ J 9 s" 10 j DU ♦'400 DU sw OTSF � ♦ \ J NO EASTERN INDIRECT CONNECTOR CONSTRUCTED. EXISTING ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL SITE WOULD BE RETAINED. ALT. B(12) IIeO ,r• /,400 DU TSF ♦♦� �`'cp OFFICE f \ `� I r G PORTION OF EXISTING FORD ROAD EASC [� OF SAN IDGUEL IS DELETID. EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH SAN MIGUEL AND THE EASTERN INDIRECT CONNECTOR. SOURCE: AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOC., INC. Circulation Variations of Alternative B(1) FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE IO:ITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT SPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES TABLE 3.8-5 ICU SUMMARY (Alternative BI1 and BI2) ALT.B(I) ALT.B(I2) ALT.B(II) MUMM TION AM Ex AM FM AM pM 128. Indirect W & Ford .27 .22 .47 .56 .40 .43 129. Indirect W & New Ford .72 .60 .73 .94 .72 .79 130. San Miguel & Ford .23 .27 .25 .26 .23. .22 131. Indirect E & New Ford .58 .83 .42 .47 .45 .60 137. Indirect E & Ford .32 .40 .11 .17 .13 .21 139. Newport Hills E & Ford .16 .18 .26 .28 .23 .24 Note: Alternative BI - Base Case 2010 with Indirect Connection (Alignment "B"). Alternative BIl - Base Case above with no eastern Indirect Connector. Alternative BI2 0 Base Case above and closure of existing Ford Road between San Miguel Drive and the existing commercial driveway. 9843.1PA-116b8 X 3.118 I ICU values for those intersections affected by implementation of Indirect Connectors are summarized in Table 3.8-3 (no changes occur to other intersections in the analysis area). Future 2010 without project conditions are summarized in Table 3.8-2 for comparison and show that Future 2010 ICU volumes -at key area intersections will be reduced with implementation of any of the proposed project alignments. As shown in Table 3.8.4, a slight reduction in traffic occurs at the intersection of San Miguel Drive and Ford Road (AM peak hour ICU is reduced by .01 from .23 with the indirect connection to .22 with the direct connection). With implementation of Direct Connectors other increases occur at the MacArthur Boulevard intersection with Ford Road, and at San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill. Slight reductions occur at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. Future traffic volumes will exceed full buildout capacity for the Jamboree/Ford Road intersection with or without implementation of proposed Ford Road and regardless of chosen alternative alignments. Without reduction strategies for'Traffic Demand Management (TDM) or Transportation Systems Management (TSM) this intersection would operate at level of service E (ICU of .93) in the PM peak hour during 2010 conditions with or without the project. Implementation of TDM and/or TSM strategies expected to occur as a result of recent air quality legislation and local Congestion Management Plan requirements could result in peak hour traffic volume reductions of ten percent or more. This would reduce the ICU value at the Jamboree/Ford intersection to an acceptable level. ��IMM- :_ M_ • � �t� a-- 48. Prior to final field inspection and approval the Transportation Corridor Agencies and OCTA shall coordinate with both the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach in the specific siting and design of a future park and ride facility in the vicinity of the Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Specific siting and design shall minimize impacts to existing residences and sensitive resources, such as Bonita Reservoir. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(M), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 49. Though not warranted by the traffic study results, the measures listed below provide additional assurances that excessive traffic volumes will not occur on San Miguel Drive should a director connector alternative be selected (Alignments A(D), B(D). o Should a direct connector alternative for San Miguel Drive be implemented, TCA and the City of Newport Beach will monitor future traffic volumes on San Miguel Drive. In the event that San Miguel Drive volumes exceed the 12,000 ADT southerly of existing Ford as projected in the EIR for the direct connector alternative, the TCA and City of Newport Beach will implement one or more of the following mitigation measures to reduce traffic volumes on San Miguel Drive: 9843,IPR-11608X 3-119 'yf�'9J2 a. installation of traffic signals on San Miguel Drive; b. installation of additional stop signs on San Miguel Drive; C. modification of signal timing; ' d. signing to encourage use of alternative routes; e. lowering of posted speed limits on San Miguel Drive; f, initiation of environmental studies for the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road ' to the Corridor on Sand Canyon Avenue; and g. other operational alternatives. After implementation the listed ( , o of one or more of operational measures as above, the TCA and the City of Newport Beach will monitor San Miguel Drive volumes to determine effectiveness. In the event that traffic volumes continue to exceed 12,000 ADP, the TCA and City of Newport Beach will consider additional mitigation ' measures as listed above to reach the desired traffic volume threshold. o In order to mitigate the impact of additional traffic noise on San Miguel Drive for ' the direct connector option, should future volumes exceed 12,000 ADT, the TCA shall complete a noise study for the homes along San Miguel Drive to assess noise impacts. If noise standards are exceeded as a result of the Ford Road realignment project, noise mitigation shall be implemented. Such mitigation could include ' upgrades of the existing wall on San Miguel Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road and existing Ford Road by replacing wood sections with higher density material where the existing wall breaks the line of sight for single family home backgrounds ' adjacent to San Miguel Drive, 50. Following selection of a preferred Ford Road realignment and extension alternative and prior to final design plans, the TCA shall have prepared a traffic study of vehicular turning movements between realigned and existing Ford Road via the selected direct or indirect connector(s), including the San Miguel Drive intersection. The study will be , coordinated with the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach (Alignments A(D). A(I), A(H), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12). 51. Though no constraints to Newport Hills Shopping Center access are anticipated, prior to identification of a precise alignment for an indirect connector east of San Miguel Drive,}��j� TCA shall conduct a focused study to assure adequate through traffic movements along the indirect connector, the existing Ford Road segment and San Miguel Drive, as well as ' adequate access to the shopping center. Such study shall assure that use of the existing Hillside Drive access to the center is not encouraged (Alignments A(I), A(12), B(1), B(12). 52. Final designs for either the C-3 or C-5 access road intersection with Ford Road shall allow for adequate left turn stacking and future signalization for General Plan land uses (Alignments C-3, C-5 and No Project). 3.8.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE E"ACTS ' Significant unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from project implementation are not anticipated. 11 9843-JPR-11608•X 3-120 1 r 3.9.1 EXISTING 3.9 AIR QUALITY ' This section is a summary of the Air Quality Analysis For The Proposed Extension and Realignment of Ford Road, dated October 30, 1991, and prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. The air quality analysis report can be found in its entirety in Appendix E. ' Air Quality Management ' The proposed project is within the South Coast Air Basin and is subject to review with respect to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The South Coast Air Basin, which comprises all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Despite having put into place many strict controls, the South Coast Air Basin still fails to meet the federal air quality standards for ' four of the six criteria pollutants. The basin is in compliance with federal standards for sulfur dioxide and lead. But the ' maximum ozone concentrations here reach about three times the federal health standard. Carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter (PM10) reach maximum levels of twice the federal standard. The Basin is the only area in the country that still fails to meet the nitrogen dioxide standard. For air quality management, the proposed project is jurisdictionally, the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. U The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a non -attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulates. Attainment of all federal and state ozone and PM10 health standards as adopted by the District Board is to occur no later than December 31, 2007. For nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide the deadlines are December 31, 1996 and December 31, 1997, respectively. Regional air quality planning is based on three documents: the Growth Management Plan, Regional Mobility Plan, and Air Quality Management Plan. The Air Quality Management Plan contains transportation land use, and energy conservation measures. The Growth Management Plan aims at jobs/housing balance to reduce vehicle miles traveled and regional vehicular emissions. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-121 I The 1991 AQMP, which has already been approved by ARB, consists of three plans; the Growth Management Plan, Regional Mobility Plan, and Air Quality Management Plan. The ' Air Quality Management Plan contains transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures. The 1991 AQMP was adopted locally on July 12, 1991, and has subsequently been approved ' by the California Air Resources Board. The 1991 AQMP must now be reviewed and approved by the U.S. EPA. Once approved by the U.S. EPA, the plan will be included in the State ' Implementation Plan (SIP). It will then serve as the framework for all future air pollution control efforts in the South Coast Air Basin. The 1989 AQMP revision was adopted locally by , the SCAQMD on March 17, 1989 and by CARB in August 1989. Meanwhile, the SCAQMD is authorized to implement the first stage, or tier, of the plan, involving 67 of the plans 123 rules. The state and the SCAQMD are proceeding with rulemaking that will accomplish the bulk of emission reductions expected in Tier 1. The AQMP has been submitted to the U.S. ' EPA and they are expected at any time. The short-term, or Tier I, component of the AQMP identifies specific control measures for ' which control technology exists now. For the most part, these measures can be adopted within the next five years, prior to the next AQMP update. They consist mainly of stationary source ' controls that will be the subject of district rules and ARB-adopted tailpipe emissions standards and performance requirements for motor vehicles. Transportation and land use controls and energy conservation measures are also included in Tier I of the plan, to the extent that ' technology is available to accomplish the emissions reduction targets. Tier I control measures are expected to be implemented by 1993 except for facility construction which may continue up to 2007. ' Monitored Air Quality The study area is in the SCAQMD's Source Receptor Area 18. There is no monitoring station located in this receptor area. The nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQMD is in EI Toro. The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air , quality experienced in the vicinity, of the project study area. Air quality data for 1985 through 1990 for the El Toro station is provided in Table 3.9-1. ' The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project study area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of , the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the project study ' area. Allareas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at El Toro, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. The major metropolitan area of Los Angeles contributes heavily to the ozone levels experienced in the area. ' 9943.1PR.11608-X 3.122 1 Pollutant Ozone PM10 CO [0] Sulfates TABLE 3.9-1 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE EL TORO AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION Days Days State Federal California National Maximum Standard Standard Standard n ar Year Level Exceeded Exceeded 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1990 .19 32 11 for 1 hr for 1 hr 1989 .23 30 7 1988 .21 41 18 1987 .20 36 16 1986 .23 38 12 1985 .28 61 30 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 1990 88 16 (29.1) 0 (0%) for 24 hr for 24 hr 1989 88 20 (33%) 0 (0%) 1988 97 11 (18%) 0 (0%) 1987 107 15 (25%) 0 (0%) 1986 109 5 (8%) 0 (0%) 1985 100 22 (37%) 0 (0%) 35 ppm 20 ppm 1990 9 0 0 for 1 hr for I hr 1989 9 0 0 1988 10 0 0 1987 8 0 0 1986 7 0 0 1985 10 0 0 9 ppm 9 ppm 1990 5.6 0 0 for 8 hr for 8 hr 1989 5.1 0 0 1988 5.1 0 0 1987 6.3 0 0 1986 N.R. 0 0 1985 N.R. 0 0 25 ug/m3 --- 1990 13.4 0 na for 24 hrs 1989 16.5 0 na 1988 16.2 0 na 1987 14.3 0 na 1986 14.9 0 na 1985 21.2 0 na 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-M Notes: 1. S02 and NO2 were not monitored at the El Toro Station. Other stations that do monitor S02 and NO2 are too far away to be an accurate indicator of levels in this area. 2. PM10 data is not monitored 365 days a year. It is sampled approximately once every three days. The percentage in the parentheses is the percent of days monitored that the standard was exceeded. 3. The 1990 data presented for sulfates is incomplete. Sulfate monitoring at this station has been discontinued. 4. N.R. - Not Reported. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. It should be noted that the California standard for total suspended particulates has recently been redefined to particles less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter (PM10). The revised standards for total suspended particulates are 30 ug/m3 (annual geometric mean) and 50 ug/m3 (24 hour average). Particulate data indicates that particulates exceeded the State and Federal standards much of the time each year. Carbon monoxide standards have not been exceeded in the last six years and nitrogen dioxide is not monitored at the El Toro station. Levels of these pollutants are attributable primarily to automobile traffic, and usually do not reach high levels except near major congested roadways such as freeways and in central business districts such as downtown Los Angeles. The levels of these pollutants are probably very low in the project study area. Modeled Local Air Quality In order to develop a more tailored profile of existing local air quality, local conditions in the vicinity of Ford Road were modeled using the CALM 4 model developed by the California Department of Transportation ("CALINE 4," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/15, November 1984). The purpose of the model is to assess air quality impacts near transportation facilities in what is known as the microscale region. The microscale region encompasses the region of a few miles around the pollutant source. Given source strength, meteorology, study area geometry and study area characteristics, the model can reliably predict pollutant concentrations. Carbon monoxide (CO) is the pollutant of major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide is a primary pollutant and is directly emitted from a variety of sources. The most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of impacts on local air quality. Federal and State standards for carbon monoxide are presented in Table 3.9-2. 9943-IM-116N.X 3424 Modeled existing CO concentrations determined by the CAUNE 4 model are presented in Table 3.9-3. TABLE 3.9-2 FEDERAL AND STATE CARBON MONOXIDE STANDARDS Averaging Time Standar Federal 1 hour 35 ppm 8 hours 9 ppm State 1 hour 20 ppm 8 hours 9 ppm TABLE 3.9-3 EXISTING MODELED CO CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FORD ROAD PROJECT VICINITY Existing CO Concentration (in ppm)* Receptor 1-Hour -Hour 1 8.3 3.6 2 8.3 3.6 3 10.0 4.8 4 9.5 4.5 5 9.8 4.7 6 9.1 4.2 7 8.6 3.8 8 8.6 3.8 9 8.7 3.9 10 8.5 3.8 * Parts per million Ten receptor locations were selected for analysis. The selections were based on proximity to roadways in the study area and on sensitivity of land use. The ten receptor locations are shown in Figure 3.9-1. Modeled results indicate that microscale air quality in the vicinity of existing Ford Road is acceptable and does not exceed State or Federal air quality standards. This conclusion is consistent with monitored air quality levels measured at the El Toro station. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-125 3.9.2 IMPACTS Short -Term Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and study area preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency17 "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SG`AQi11D Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Completion of the project is estimated to occur 18 months from construction commencement. The amount of land within the project study area that will be subject to grading activities for the realignment and extension of Ford Road is approximately 21 acres. Grading activities are expected to take two months. The above factors result in an estimate of 25.2 tons of particulate emissions released during grading of the project. Averaged over the 2 month grading cycle of the project, this results in an average of 0.41 tons per day of particulate matter released due to the grading of the project. Peak emissions are identical to the average emissions. The grading emissions are a small amount compared to the 87 tons per day of particulate matter currently released in Orange County. The impact from grading will be localized. Furthermore, dust generated by construction activities will mainly consist of inert silicates and is more of a nuisance than a serious health problem. Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. A diesel powered grader is the most common equipment used for grading operations. For this type of project, up to 12 pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. The emission rates that were used in this report for construction equipment were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook.18 If all of the equipment operated for 8 hours per day the following emissions would result; 90.7 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 238.8 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 18.3 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 28.4 pounds per day of sulfur oxides, and approximately 21.5 pounds per day of particulate matter. The emissions generated by construction equipment are considered insignificant. 17.'CompHation of Air Pollutant Fadaiioo Farton", It. Air Q"Hty Handbook for hgado{ Bata. 9843-JM-11608X 3.126 ri I rl ri � 1• ''s ! t i m.,gr�'r � � ,� , l .M3 , t Air Quality Receptor Locations NOTES: RECEPTORS NOT SHOWN LOCATION LOCKE CT. AT LOS TRANCOS DR. (UCI STUDENT HOUSING) 2 VISTA BONITA AT OWEN CT. (UCI STUDENT HOUSING) �Y 9 PORT WESTBORNE AT NEWPORT HILLS DR. WEST (HARBOR VIEW) 10 ANDERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES SOURCE: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES figure: 3.9-1 ® THE KEITH CO © PANIES U LONG TERM LOCAL CONDITIONS As indicated in Tables 3.9-4 and 3.9-5, CO concentrations at the various receptors do not significantly change regardless of the alignment alternative. CO concentrations for the A(II) ' and B(11) Alternatives are not presented. The reason for this is that traffic volumes for the A(11) and B(Il) Alternatives are not significantly different from the Direct and Indirect alternatives. Therefore, CO concentrations will be nearly identical to those of the Direct and Indirect alternatives. For most receptors CO concentrations will increase incrementally in the future with or without the project due to future development. None of the receptors will experience CO concentrations in excess of State or Federal standards. ' Implementation of the No Project Alignment (extension of existing Ford Road to SJHTC) would result in highest average 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for monitored receptors ' for local air quality along Ford Road due to increased future traffic levels there. Implementation of the AI alignment would result in the lowest average 1-hour CO ' concentrations locally for monitored receptors. For 8-hour CO concentration measurements implementation of either the AD or Al Alternative would result in lowest average local CO levels for monitored receptors. ' Regional Air Quality Based on available traffic data, there will be no regional impacts from project implementation. ' The extension and realignment of Ford Road is proposed as a mitigation measure for SJHTC and is part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan proposed for planning projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase vehicle speeds and reduce air pollution. The ' AQMP includes growth assumptions based on full implementation of the General Plan, including the MPAH. The project is consistent with the AQMP and will not generate additional traffic. On a regional basis, there is little difference in air quality impacts between the No Project ' Alternative and the A and B alternatives. r F I9843-JPR-11608-X 3-128 k I �1 TABLE 3.9-4 I -HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIO PROJECTIONS FOR YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Alt. A (mum) Alt. A Alt. B Receptor ZZltting No Build No Protect pj4 Inds D14 1 8.3 8.8 8.8 9.0 9.0 8.9 2 9.3 8.7 8.7 8.9 8.9 8.8 3 10.0 10.3 10.1 9.7 9.7 10.1 4 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.7 5 9.8 11.0 10.4 8.9 8.0 9.0 6 9.1 9.2 9.7 8.9 8.9 9.1 7 8.6 8.7 9.9 9.2 9.2 9.3 8 8.6 8.7 8.9 8.7 8.7 8.9 9 8.7 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.8 10 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.6 TABLE 3.9-5 8-11OUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS PROJECTIONS FOR YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (now) Alt. B Alt. A Alt. A Receptor Existing No Build No Protect Dill IRL pi, 1 3,6 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 2 3.6 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 3 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.9 4 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.6 5 4.7 5.5 5.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 6 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.2 7 3.8 3.9 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.3 8 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 9 3.9 4.0 4.0 3,9 3.9 4.0 10 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 9843-JM 11608-X 3.129 Alt. B Igd. 8.9 9.9 9.7 9.7 9.0 9.0 9.3 8.9 8.7 8.6 Alt. B Ind. 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.8 I 3.9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 53. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Construction Management and Phasing Plan shall be developed as a guide for the construction -phase of developmew to be used during clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, and construction: a. Fugitive dust will be controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures as defined in SCAQMD Rule 403. (Alignments A(D), A(I), AR, A(l2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). b. Soil binders shall be spread in the study area and in unpaved roads and parking areas. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). c. Ground cover shall be re-established on construction sites through seeding and watering. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). d. Construction will be discontinued during second stage smog alerts. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). e. Seeding and watering will be performed until vegetation cover is grown. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). f. Areas will be wet down sufficiently to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). g. Street sweeping will be performed in those areas where excessive dust would be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). h. Trucks shall be washed -off as they leave the study area. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). j. Equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). k. Low -sulphur fuel shall be used for equipment. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 9843-IPR-11608-X 3-130 L� Long -Term To ensure full consistency with the AQMP, the following long-term measures should be , incorporated in the project design. , 54. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, the TCA shall review the final design plans to assure that the project design allows for retrofitting of mass transit accommodations, ' such as bus turnout lanes and bus shelters. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(l), B(II), B(I2)0 C-3, C-5 and No Project). 3.9.4 SIGNMCANi UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE BRACTS ' There are no significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts with implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures. 11 I_J u I 1' 1 1 9643dPR-11606-X 3.131 I 3.10 NOISE 3.10.1 EXISTING The following section is a summary of the Noise Analysis for the Extension and Realignment of Ford Road, dated November, 1991 and prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. This report can be found in its entirety in Appendix F. The computed highway noise levels presented herein for the realignment and•extension of Ford Road were calculated using traffic volumes for the project as input to the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." Noise projections for the extension and realignment of Ford Road take into account barriers and topography that may reduce noise levels. Traffic Volumes used in this analysis are obtained from the Traffic Study for the Extension and Realignment of Ford Road prepared by Austin -Foust Associates (Appendix D). These volumes are from NBTAM traffic model runs. There are some variations between the noise data presented herein and the data in the Final EIR / EIS for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency. This is due to differences in the traffic volumes used as input to the FHWA Model. The variations between traffic volumes presented herein and those for the SJHTC are due to the use of two different traffic models as discussed in Section 3.9. For the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, worst case topographic data, along with the existing noise mitigation, were used to determine this roadway's contribution to the cumulative noise impact upon existing residences. Note that the projected noise levels from the SJHTC include mitigation from the proposed sound wall along the corridor. Topographical mitigation was not included for the contributory noise impacts of the extension and realignment of Ford Road due to the uncertainty of the effect of future development on the property that lies between the New Ford Road alignments and the existing residences. Noise Standards Community noise is generally not a steady state and varies with time. Several rating scales are used to quantify human response to noise and to assess adverse effects of noise on people. A number of noise scales have been developed for this purpose. These scales include the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the L 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-132 Percentile Metric. Both the LEQ and CNEL measures are based on the A -weighted decibel (dBA) which compensates specific noise frequencies to match human perception of noise. LEQ is the "energy average noise level". CNEL is similar to LEQ, but is measured over a period of twenty four hours and applies a weighting factor which places greater significance on noise events occurring during the evening and night hours when sleep disturbance is a concern. The evening time period (7 P.M. to 10 P.M.) penalizes noises by ME, while nighttime (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.) noises are penalized by 10 dB. Figure 3.10-1 shows typical outdoor noise levels in terms of CNEL. The L percentile metric (commonly notated as "L 50" or "L 90," refers to the dBA noise level that is exceeded for an exact percentage of time during a specific measurement period. The higher the percentile (L90 or L99) the lower the noise level. L99 noise level would be the noise level exceeded for 99% of the duration of the measurement period and would almost be the minimum noise level recorded during the measurement. The Noise Elements for the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine specify outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses. The exterior noise limit for outdoor living areas is 65 CNEL. The interior noise level standard is 45 CNEL. The City of Newport Beach is currently revising its Noise Element. Noise Measurements Noise measurements were conducted at ten sites on September 25 and 27, 1991. These sites were selected on the basis of proximity to and potential for noise exposure from old Ford Road and New Ford Road. Noise sensitivity of land use was also considered. Figure 3.10-2 shows the location of monitoring sites nearest the project location. 9643-nk-11606X 3-133 CNEL Outdoor Location Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport F— Downtown With Some Construction Activity I —Urban High Density Apartment F—Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue E— Old Urban Residential Area <— Wooded Residential F—Agricultural Crop Land <— Rural Residential F— Wilderness Ambient .19;k. MJ:4s �7w3C'13��Y•.nral Typical Outdoor Noise Levels figure:3.10-1 FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT THE KEITH COMPANIES TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES a I I I U - ' .i 1 I 11 `� • _ - _ 4_ via c...awavv> u_ cac�iacaee. � •1 ,�. _= exc� -�+such �=y.s._cca_4o.> ♦ �- •, � ,S � � � �' j � f \: sr-, elf--� �,�,(Y�. 4 �z 1 10 it )` •�.i� l 1l, (f h -• Noise Measurement Locations ell �' FORD ROAD EXTENSION '♦` `'�'-'" `` `'1 AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.10-2 0 65 130 260 390 ® THE KEITf© COMPANIES SITE 1 Site 1 lies on the south side of existing Ford Road, approximately 270 feet east of .the intersection of Ford Road and Hillside Drive, and is adjacent to 2774 Hill View Drive. The ' land use at this site is comprised of multi -family residences and open space. The residences in this vicinity are elevated above the grade of existing Ford Road by an average of five feet and would have a direct line of sight to New Ford Road. ' SITE 2 ' Site 2 lies on the south side of existing Ford Road, approximately 350 feet west of the intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive West. The land use at this site is comprised of single family residences, open space and some industrial. The residences in this vicinity are depressed in relation to existing Ford Road by five to nine feet and are shielded from roadway noise by topography and five foot tall perimeter barriers. ' SITE 3 ' Site 3 lies on the south side of existing Ford Road, approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of existing Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive West. The land use in this vicinity is comprised of single family residential and open space. The residences at this site ' are elevated above existing Ford Road by five to ten feet and have five foot tall perimeter barriers to shield the properties from roadway noise. Site 4 lies on the south side of existing Ford Road, approximately 850 feet west of the ' intersection of existing Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive East. The land use in this vicinity is comprised of single family residential, park and open space. The residences at this site are elevated above existing Ford Road by three to eight feet and have five foot tall perimeter barriers to shield the properties from roadway noise. SITE 5 Site 5 lies on the south side of existing Ford Road, approximately 300 feet west of the intersection of existing Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive East. The land use in this vicinity ' are comprised of single family residential and open space. The residences at this site are slightly elevated above existing Ford Road and have five foot tall perimeter barriers to shield ' the properties from roadway noise. 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-136 U Site 6 lies on the south side of existing Ford Road, approximately 275 feet west of the intersection of existing Ford Road and San Miguel Drive. The land use in this vicinity is comprised of single family residential and open space. The residences at this site are slightly elevated above existing Ford Road and have five foot tall perimeter barriers to shield the properties from roadway noise. Site 7 lies on the southeast corner of Newport Hills Drive East and Port Cardiff Place and represents the second row of houses away from existing Ford Road. The land use at this site is comprised entirely of single family residential dwellings. Some residences have a limited line of sight to existing Ford Road, but experience a noise reduction benefit from the houses lining existing Ford Road. All residences have five foot tall perimeter barriers surrounding the rear yards. Site g lies near the residence at 1927 Port Cardiff Place and further represents the second row of houses away from existing Ford Road. The land use at this site is comprised entirely of single family residential dwellings. All residences experience a noise reduction benefit from the houses lining existing Ford Road. All residences have five foot tall perimeter barriers surrounding the rear yards. Site 9 lies at 2714 Hilltop Drive. The residences in this vicinity are significantly elevated above the grade of existing Ford Road and would have a direct line of sight to both the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and New Ford Road. The residences at this site have no sound walls or barriers of any kind. The units have little exterior living space, but do have rear balconies and decks. Site 10 lies on the southwest corner of Newport lulls Drive West and Port Sheffield Place and further represents the second row of houses away from existing Ford Road. The land use at this site is comprised entirely of single family residential dwellings. Some residences have a limited line of sight to existing Ford Road, but experience a noise reduction benefit from the houses lining existing Ford Road. All residences have five foot tall perimeter barriers surrounding the rear yard. During the measurements, there were multiple sources of noise, including local and distant traffic, birds, and multiple aircraft sources (commercial jet noise from John Wayne Airport and general aviation helicopter and airplane overflights). 9943-IPA-IIWII.X 3.137 I 1 Table 3.10-1 shows calculated CNEL noise levels for sites two through seven and ten; estimated CNEL for sites 1, 8 and 9 are based on noise measurements, as noise from Ford Road is not a major factor in CNEL level at these sites. Traffic volumes at the terminus of Ford Road are extremely small and noise levels at this location are far more reliant upon factors other than traffic. Therefore, CNEL noise levels at Site 1 were estimated based upon measurement data. Similarly, Sites 8 and'9 are estimated based upon measurement data because noise levels at these locations are primarily due to factors other than traffic on Ford Road. Currently, noise levels in the project vicinity are at acceptable levels and are within standards set forth in the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. TABLE 3.10-1 EXISTING CNEL NOISE LEVELS SITE CNEL Level 1 <55.0* 2 55.0 3 59.6 4 54.3 5 61.9 6 60.6 7 53.9 8 46.9* 9 <50.0* 10 54.9 * - Estimated CNEL based upon noise measurements. These sites are estimated from measurement data because the noise from Ford Road is not a major factor in the CNEL level at these sites. 9843-M-11608-X 3-138 'i 3.10.2 EMPACTS Construction Noise Construction noise will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project. The Ford Road Extension and Realignment project is estimated to require an 18 month construction period. Approximately two months of this time will be spent on grading activities. Construction noise, generally, represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program.19 Examples of construction noise at 50 fat are presented in Figure 3.10-3. There are residential uses that are situated near the study area. These residences may be exposed to audible noise levels from construction activities. The nearest of these homes is located approximately 330 fat from the nearest site of grading operations for both Alternative A and Alternative B of the project. At 330 feet, construction noise levels will be approximately 8.2 dBA less than the levels presented in Figure 3.10-3; and for greater distances sound will be attenuated by 6dBA per 100 fat in distance. The grading activities present the greatest potential for construction noise impacts. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. The Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine have adopted ordinances that limit the hours of construction activities to typical weekday work hours. Long -Term Noise All project alignment alternatives except the No Project alternatives will result in traffic noise levels less than 65 CNEL at all sites in the project vicinity. Noise impacts from Ford Road for any of the Build Project alternatives (Alternatives A(D), A(I), B(D), B(I), B(il) and B(12) will not exceed the 65 CNEL standard. This conclusion, however, does not account for other noise sources in the area which could have a significant effect upon the noise levels in the area in the future. This conclusion, does not account for noise from other traffic sources such as the SJHTC. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3.10-2 and indicate that future noise levels from Ford Road itself will exceed 65 CNEL only at Site 1 under the No Project Alternative. An analysis of cumulative traffic noise (traffic noise from Ford Road combined with the traffic noise from the SJHTC) shows that noise levels will exceed 65 CNEL at some portions of the existing residential land uses. 19. Code of Federal ReSuladon, Part 204 of Tide 40. 9&43JPR-11606-x 3-139 A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at 50 feet 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compact (rollers) Front loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches Jackhammers and drills Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979. SOURCE. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT THE KEITH COMPANIES TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES TABLE 3.10-2 FUTURE CUMULATIVE CNEL NOISE LEVELS WITH EXISTING MITIGATION Site and Conldtwiot Exlating No Build No Project NOISE LEVELS IN CNEL M A Alt A Direct indirect Alt B Dked Alt S Indirect All B (11) Alt B (12) SITE 1 Old Ford Road 55.0 55.0 6719 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45,0 New Ford Road na a a 56.8 56.7 562 58.4 $4.0 64.0 SJHTO na 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.7 63.7 Cumulative 55.0 64.4 69.4 65.1 65.1 65.0 65,0 64.2 64.2 SITE 2 Old Ford Road 55.0 5018 58.1 48.9 48.9 48.0 48.9 48.9 46.0 New Ford Road na na a 41A 41.1 42.3 422 41.9 41.9 SJHTO na 41.7 41.8 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 Cumulative $5.0 5619 58.2 50.3 50.2 50.4 50.4 50.3 50.3 SITE 3 Old Ford Road 511A 61.3 61.1 53.0 53.6 53.0 $3.6 59.9 $015 New Ford Road he na a 44.6 44.3 54.6 50.7 54.3 54.3 SJHTO a 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 Cumulative 59.0 61.4 61.2 54.7 54.6 57.4 55.8 60.6 61.5 SITE 4 Old Ford Road 64.3 58.0 55.8 48.3 46.3 48.3 48.3 53.9 $5.3 New Ford Road a a a 44.1 43.8 50.0 49.7 502 5012 SJHTO a 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 Oumulative $4.3 56.5 56.4 51.6 51.6 53.4 53.3 56.0 57.0 SITE 5 Old Ford Road 81.9 83,8 03.4 55.0 55.9 55.9 55.9 81.5 62.s New Ford Road a a na 44.0 44.5 50.1 55.1 50.2 502 SJHTO a 45.7 45.7 45.7 45.7 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 Cumulative 01.9 63.7 53,5 56.6 56.6 $7.2 58.7 6i.6 63.1 SITE 8 Old Ford Road 50.8 52.4 82.2 54.0 54,6 54.6 54.6 60.3 01.0 New Ford Road a a na 40.3 40.0 50.0 SU 50.1 50.1 SJHTC a 60.0 60.1 60.0 60.0 56.1 56.1 56.1 56.1 Cumulative 50.0 84.9 04.8 62.3 62.3 50.7 solo 62.4 83.2 SITE 7 Old Ford Road $3.9 55,8 55.4 47.8 47,8 47.8 47.8 53.5 54.0 New Ford Road a a a 46.3 46.0 49.6 46.7 50.0 50.0 SJHTO a 46.9 43.6 45.6 45.6 44.9 44.9 44.9 44.9 Cumulative 53.9 50.1 55.8 51.4 51.3 52.7 51.4 55.5 56.4 SITE 6 Old Ford Road 40.9 46.7 46.4 42.9 42.9 42,9 42.0 48.6 47.9 Now Ford Road a na na 43.5 432 48.0 47.7 46.1 46.1 SJHTO a 42.6 42.6 42.6 42,6 42,6 42.6 42,6 42.6 Cumulative 40.9 49.7 49.4 47.8 47.7 50.0 49.8 51.1 51.6 98434PR-11606-X 3-141 TABLE 3.10-2 FUTURE CUMULATIVE CNEL NOISE LEVELS WITH EXISTING MITIGATION (Continued) NOISE LEVELS IN CNEL Site and No No MA MA Alt B Aft B AR B Alt B Contributor Existing Build Project Direct Indirect Direct Indirect (11) (12) SITE 8 Old Ford Road 50.0 50.0 63.1 45.0 45.0 New Ford Road na na na 52.6 52.7 SJHTC na 63.8 63.9 63.8 63.8 CumulaWe 50.o 64.0 64.2 64.2 64.2 SITE 10 Old Ford Road 54.9 56.3 56.1 48.5 48.5 New Ford Road na na na 47.1 46.7 SJHTC na 42.6 42.7 42.6 42.6 Cumulative 54.8 56.5 56.3 51.5 51.3 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 52.3 52.4 52.4 52.4 63.8 63.9 63.9 63.9 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 3� 3 46.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 49.2 49.6 46.9 48.9 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6 52.4 52.6 52.2 52.2 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-142 I Table 3.10-2 shows specific noise levels that will exist for future conditions in the rear yards ' of existing residences with And without the project. These noise levels do not account for topographic changes from future development planned for the project study area. Major ' contributing future noise sources in the study area include existing Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. A sound wall will be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the SWC to reduce future noise levels at existing residences to comply with the Noise Standards for the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The projected noise levels 13s'a from the SJHTC in Table 3.10-2 include mitigation from this proposed sound wall. Some sites will experience significant increases in future noise levels. Specifically, Site I will experience future noise levels as great as 69.4 CNEL. This level exceeds the Noise Standards for both the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Figure 3.10-4 shows the existing and future ' cumulative noise levels in a graph format. Implementation of mitigation measures recommended in Section 3.10.3 herein with reduce future cumulative noise levels to a level of insignificance to comply with the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine Noise Standards. ' The contours shown in Table 3.10-3 were generated by the FHWA model 20 Utilizing traffic data from the Ford Road extension and realignment traffic analysis (Appendix D) and the ' FHWA Model, CNEL contours were determined for the project which are exclusive of future cumulative noise conditions. Figure 3.10-5 shows 65 CNEL contours for the worst case traffic volumes for Alternatives A and B. As shown, noise levels at residences will not be ' significantly impacted with implementation of the extension and realignment of Ford Road; project related noise levels will be less than 65 CNEL at residences. Future noise levels will increase in the area with or without the project. Without a Ford Boad realignment, all of the residences adjacent to Ford Road will experience increased noise levels in the future. The increase in noise will be caused by increased traffic on existing roadways t and SJHTC. The noise levels discussed in the previous paragraphs refer only to noise levels in the exterior , living space of the existing residences. The City of Newport Beach, has an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Residential structures of the type that are typically constructed in ' southern California achieve a 20 dBA exterior to interior noise reductions. This 1 11 20.FHWAHShwq Thft Note PM[o4on Mode, FNWA.M77.10/, December, 1974. ' 9143-7PR•116% X 3.143 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mI 70.0 65.0 60.0 J W I O 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 0l 11Onr. �atrnmr andard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Site Existing �- No Build No Project Alt A Direct W _ Alt A Indirect All B Direct All B Indirect Alt B It y' Alt B 12 65 CNEL Existing and Future Noise Levels FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT THE KEITH COMPANIES TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES a TABLE 3.10-3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS21 Distance to CNIFL Contour tftl Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Existing No No22 A do B A do B B(II) do Conditions Rpm Proiect Direct Indirect Wz Roadway Segments 70 65 60 70 65 60 70 65 60 70 65 60 70 65 60 70 65 60 Old Ford Road MacArthur to Newport Hills W. 33 72 I55 60 129 278 53 114 245 na na na na na na na na na Npt. Hills W. to Npt Hills E. 33 72 155 60 129 278 53 114 245 13 28 61 13 28 61 39 83 179 Newport Hills E to San Miguel 33 72 155 60 129 278 53 114 245 13 28 61 13 28 61 39 83 179 San Miguel to SJHTC na na na na na na 54 117 252 na na na na na na na na na East of SJHTC na na na na na na 56 120 259 na na na na na na na na na New Ford Road MacArthur to West Connector na na na na na na na na na 57 123 265 54 117 252 54 117 252 W.Con.to SJHTC na na na na na na na na na 57 126 272 59 126 272 59 126 272 East of SJHTC na na na na na na na na na 57 123 265 57 123 265 59 126 272 SJHTC North of New Ford/Bonita na na na 331 7141,538 336 7241,561 334 7191,549 335 7221,555 335 7221,555 South of New Ford/Bonita na na na 320 690I,487 322 6931,493 323 6961,499 323 6961,499 323 6961,499 A and B Alignments 65 CNEL Noise Contour LEGEND m m m m 65 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR ■enemen•■ FUTURE SOUND WALL SOURCE: MESTRE GREVE ASSOC. FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.10-5 165 660 ® THE KEI© PANIES 0 330 990 I ' reduction, however, assumes that the windows in the structure are closed. With the windows open, the structures noise reduction characteristics typically fall to only 12 dBA. This means that any exterior noise level greater than 57 CNEL could potentially ' cause noise levels inside the structure to exceed 45 CNEL if the windows are open. Interior noise levels for future development in the study area can be mitigated to ' acceptable levels through development design. Interior noise levels for existing development near the study area may be acoustically buffered to some degree by future t development between Old Ford Road and New Ford Road and can be reduced with noise walls. ' Interior noise levels for future development in the study area can be mitigated to acceptable levels through development design. Interior noise levels for existing development near the study area may be acoustically buffered to some degree by future ' development between Old Ford Road and New Ford Road and can be reduced with noise walls. t Without mitigation, sites will experience future noise levels that exceed the noise standards set forth by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. These noise levels, however, are not caused by the extension and realignment of Ford Road. Toward the ' eastern end of the project, the SIHTC tends to dominate the noise environment. The extension and realignment of Ford Road has little overall effect upon the noise environment. Table 3.10-4 summarizes the difference in future noise levels for all sites and alternatives. Changes from 1 dBA to 3dBA are not considered significant. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often ' identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Note that there is no scientific evidence available to support ' the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures are over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become ' discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. 1 9843-JPA-11608-x 3-147 U TABLE 3.10-4 DIFFERENCES OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS IN NOISE LEVELS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS BY SITE AND ALTERNATIVE DIFFERENCES IN NOISE LEVELS OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS Site No BuildNo Project* Alt A Alt A Alt B Alt B Alt B Alt B (dBA) (dBA) Direct Indirect Direct Indirect (I1) (12) 1 9.4 14.4 10.1 14.0 10.0 9.9 9.2 9.2 2 3.9 3.2 -4.5 -4.8 -4.6 -4.6 -4.7 -4.7 3 1.8 1.6 -4.7 -5.0 -2.2 -3.8 1.0 1.9 4 2.2 2.1 -2.1 -2.7 -0.9 -1.0 1.7 2.7 5 1.8 1.6 -5.2 -5.3 -4.7 -3.2 0.0 1.2 6 3.8 3.7 1.7 0.6 -1.6 -1.3 1.4 2.3 7 2.2 1.9 -2.1 -2.6 -1.2 -1.5 1.6 2.5 8 2.8 2.5 1.3 0.8 3.1 2.9 4.2 4.7 9 14.0 14.2 17.8 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 10 1.6 1.4 -3.2 -3.6 -2.5 -2.3 -2.7 -2.7 * Extension of existing Ford Road to S7HTC. 9841-im 1160M 3-148 11 I 11 30 31.' 11 11 u 11 it 11 11 11 J Noise levels are going to increase at some of the sites significantly in the future. Sites 1 and 9, especially, will experience noise level increases in future years regardless of which alternative is chosen. The reason for this is that the SJHTC will be constructed near the existing residences adjacent to Ford Road. The increases in Table 8, however, do not take into account the effect of mitigation that will be designed into the SJHTC. The noise levels for most of the analyzed sites are expected to drop under the Build Project alternatives. Under these alternatives, traffic will be drawing from the existing Ford Road and will end up on New Ford Road. The following section discusses the noise impacts of the project on a site by site basis. Following are site specific noise impacts related to the proposed project: Regardless of which alternative is ultimately chosen, noise levels at Site 1 will increase significantly. The minimum future noise level for this site will be 64.2 CNEL (the B(I1) and B(12) Alternative), and the maximum Future noise level will be 69.4 CNEL (No Project). The major reason that noise levels will increase is the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Site 1 has a direct line of sight to the future alignment of the SJHTC and will be impacted by traffic noise on this roadway. The reason that the No Project alternative causes the greatest future noise levels is that Ford Road, under this plan, will be extended to connect with Bonita Canyon Drive (and will allow access to the SJHTC), but will not be realigned and, thus, will carry high traffic volumes at a very short distance from the existing residences. There is negligible difference between the A and B Alternatives; these alternatives will result in Future noise levels at this site of approximately 65 CNEL. The No Project, A(D), A(I) and B(D) alternatives will result in noise levels that exceed the noise standards of both the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine of 65 CNEL. Significant impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. lt4 Noise levels at Site 2 could, actually, decrease in the future, depending upon the alternative that is chosen. The A and B alternatives will result in noise levels less than 51 CNEL, where the existing CNEL is approximately 55 CNEL. The No Build alternative is the worst case alternative and will result in noise levels of 58.2 CNEL. No alternative results in noise levels that exceed the 65 CNEL noise standard at this site; therefore, noise levels here will not be significant. 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-149 Noise levels at Site 3 could also decrease in the future, depending -upon the alternative that is chosen. The A alternatives represent the lowest future noise levels and will result in noise levels of less than 55 CNEL. The existing noise levels are approximately equal 59.6 CNEL. Alternative B (12) is the worst case alternative and will result in noise levels of 61.5 CNEL. No alternative results in noise levels that exceed the 65 CNEL noise standard at this site, therefore, noise levels here will not be significant. Noise levels at Site 4 will not significantly change in the future regardless of which alternative is chosen. The existing CNEL is approximately 54.3. Future CNEL noise levels range from approximately 52 CNEL (the A alternatives) to approximately 57 CNEL (Alternative B(12)). No alternative results in noise levels that exceed the 65 CNEL noise standard at this site; therefore, noise levels here will not be significant. The existing CNEL levels at this site is approximately 61.9 CNEL. Worst case future noise levels for this site approach, but do not exceed, the 65 CNEL standard. The No Project alternative results in noise levels of approximately 63.7 CNEL. If either the A or B alternatives are chosen, noise levels would drop to 56.6 or 58.E CNEL, respectively. (Alternatives B(Il) and B(12), however, will result in noise level of 61.9 and 63.1 CNEL respectively). Future noise levels here will not exceed the 65 CNEL standard and are not considered significant. As with Site 5, worst case future noise levels approach, but do not exceed, the 65 CNEL standard. The No Build and No Project alternatives result in noise levels of approximately 64.4 CNEL. If either the A or B alternatives are chosen, however, noise levels would remain roughly the same or would rise only slightly. Noise levels for Alternative A and B would equal approximately 61.2 CNEL. The B(Il) and B(12) alternatives will result in noise levels of 62.4 and 63.2 CNEL respectively. The existing CNEL is approximately 60.6 CNEL. Future noise levels will not exceed for 65 CNEL standards and are not considered significant. As with Site 4, noise levels at Site 7 will not significantly change in the future regardless of which alternative is chosen. The existing CNEL is approximately 53.9. Future CNEL noise levels range from approximately 51 CNEL (the A alternatives) to approximately 56.4 CNEL 96434M-11606-X 3.150 (Alternative B(I2). No alternative results in noise levels that exceed the 65 CNEL noise standard at this site; therefore, noise levels will not be significant. The existing noise level (caused by traffic noise) at Site 8 is approximately 46.9 CNEL. Future noise levels, depending upon the alternative that is chosen, could rise slightly to 47.8 I (the A alternatives) or to approximately 51.6 CNEL (Alternative B(I2)). No alternative results in noise levels that exceed the 65 CNEL noise standard at this site; therefore, noise levels will not be significant. The existing noise level at Site 9 is approximately 50 CNEL. Based on detailed traffic and land use data for future conditions in the area, noise levels at Site 9 will increase significantly I if the SJHTC is built. No alternative exists that will not cause future noise levels to exceed 65 CNEL. Future noise levels will be almost identical regardless of the alternative that is chosen. The reason for this is that the SJH'TC dominates the future noise environment at this site. Future noise levels will be approximately 64.2 CNEL. Implementation of recommended) mitigation measures will further reduce cumulative impacts below a level of significance. The existing noise level at Site 10 is approximately 54.9 CNEL. Future noise levels could drop to less than 52 CNEL (the A or B Alternatives) or rise slightly to 56.5 CNEL (the No Project alternative). No alternative will cause future noise levels to exceed 65 CNEL at this site; therefore, noise levels will not be significant. NOISE R"ACTS ON BONITA RESERVOIR There is some concern regarding noise impacts on the Bonita Reservoir bird nesting area due to the traffic noise from Ford Road. A noise criteria of 60 Leq has been suggested by SANDAG ("Comprehensive Species Management Plan for Least Bell's Vireo," Draft, January, 1990) for the Least Bell's Vireo. This noise level is suggested to ensure the continued use of the trees adjacent to the roadway by the Least Bell's Vireo. The 60 Leq contour for the worst case traffic conditions for any of the proposed alternatives for the project will not affect the birds' nesting areas. Noise levels at the birds' nesting areas will be less than 60 Leq; therefore, these noise levels are not significant. 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-151 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS To summarize the above paragraphs, either one of the A Alternatives appears to be the most beneficial alternative from a noise perspective. The overall benefit of the A Alternative t only slight, but will result in the lowest overall noise levels at the existing residential land use adjacent to existing Ford Road. The Direct and Indirect sub -alternatives do not have a significant effect upon the ultimate noise impacts of the A alternative. For Sites 1 and 9, there is no real difference between any of the alternatives in terms of a noise impact. For Sites 20 30 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10, either one of the A alternatives will result in the lowest future noise levels. For Site 6, the B(D) and B(I) alternatives will result in the lowest future noise levels. The worst case Build Project alternatives are the B(1) and B(I2) alternatives. The City of Irvine requires that all outdoor living areas comply with the 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard, Some of the residences adjacent to existing Ford Road near the eastern portion of the study area will be exposed to noise levels that exceed the 65 CNEL noise standards set forth by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. These noise levels, however, are not caused by the extension and realignment of Ford Road, Where the exceedances occur in the No Project Alternative, they are caused by the SJHTC and by increased traffic volumes on the non -realigned Ford Road. Where the exeeedances occur for the A and B with direct and indirect connector alternatives, they are caused exclusively by the SJHTC. The project will contribute incrementally to future noise conditions. 3.10.3 MITIGATION Construction Noise 55. Ongoing during the construction phase of development construction activities shall comply with the Noise Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine so that the hours of construction are considered acceptable in both jurisdictions. Weekdays 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Saturdays 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No construction is allowed on these days (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 56. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled and kept in proper tune. (Alignments A(D), Am, A(I1)1 A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9943-JM-116WX 3.152 I 57. Ongoing during project construction, noise level requirements will apply to all equipment on the project or related to the project including, but not limited to, trucks, transit mixers or transient equipment. The use of loud sound signals will be avoided in favor of warning lights, except those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 58. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, designated haul routes for construction equipment and heavy construction related vehicles shall be located away from existing residential and other sensitive land uses. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Long -Term Noise 59. Sound attenuation shall be implemented in the form of sound walls along the SMTC in the vicinity of Bonita Reservoir as necessary to reduce future cumulative noise levels to a maximum exterior level of 65 CNEL and interior level of 45 CNEL for affected existing residences in accordance with standards established by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. A(I), A(D), B(I), B(D), B(II), B(12) and No Project). 60. After the SMC is completed and a noise barrier is in place, noise measurements shall be taken at the existing residences adjacent to existing Ford Road to determine if the Corridor noise barrier is succeeding in reducing cumulative noise levels to less than 65 CNEL. If the cumulative noise levels exceed 65 CNEL with the barrier in place, the barrier shall be subject to upgrades or alternative improvements shall be implemented (double pained windows or insulation) until measurements show that noise levels comply with the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine noise standards. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 3.10.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EUPACTS There would be no significant unavoidably adverse noise impacts remaining after implementation of the above mitigation measures. 9843-JPR-116N-X 3-153 C 3.11 CULTURAL SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 3.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Following is a summary of the "Report on Assessment of Paleontological Resources for the Ford Road Extension, Orange County, 'California," prepared by John D. Cooper, Ph.D. and dated August 23, 1991; the "Prehistoric Cultural Resource Survey Report and Analysis of Impacts for the Ford Road Realignment EiR," dated September 23, 1991, prepared by The Keith Companies; and "Buffalo Ranch, a Determination of Eligibility/Significance Report and Impacts/Mitigation Analysis for the Ford Road Realignment EIR," prepared by Roger Hatheway, dated October, 1991. These reports are based on records searches, literature reviews, and field surveys and can be found in their entirety in Appendix G. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Most of the project study area is immediately underlain by poorly consolidated marine terrace deposits of Lake Pleistocene age (Qtm). These are flat -lying, mostly silty sand deposits with scattered pebble layers which are poorly exposed and in most places are mantled by a soil profile that is vegetated. In places these terrace deposits extend to a depth of 40 to 50 feet below the surface. Most of the northeasterly segment of the project study area consists of younger Holocene unconsolidated alluvial sands and gravels and Older non marine terrace deposits (Qtn) of the Bonita Creek drainage system. These are also poorly exposed and are covered mostly by soil profile and vegetation. Areas near MacArthur Boulevard consist of gray siltstone and very fine sandstone and are probably marine Upper Pliocene Fernando Formation. Older bedrock underlying the proposed alignments and connectors belongs to the marine Topanga Formation of Middle Miocene age. In most of the project study area the older bedrock unit is the Paularino Member of the Topanga Formation. East of Bonita Reservoir, the underlying bedrock unit is the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation. There are no recorded or observed surface, occurrences of fossils in the study area. Areas representing Holocene stream alluvium (Qai) are less than 10,000 years old and are geologically too young to contain fossils. Older Quaternary alluvial deposits (Qtn) are Early Holocene or late Pleistocene age. Such deposits have produced remains of late ice -age terrestrial vertebrates from Newport Mesa and other areas of coastal Orange County. Some microvertebrate material (mostly rodent and rabbit teeth and unidentified mammalian bone fragments) were retrieved from nonmarine terrace deposits along San Diego Creek in the UC 9943-JPK-11601-X 3.154 Irvine north campus area. Quaternary marine terrace deposits (Qtm) have produced abundant invertebrates and some vertebrates (mixed marine and nonmarine). Miocene bedrock units in the area have produced abundant micro fossils. The Paularino member of the Topanga Formation has produced abundant microfossils and represents deep marine basin slope depositional environments. The underlying Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation recently produced an abundant and diverse assemblage of fossils from various excavations in the Irvine Coast Planning area. All areas were systematically surveyed with the exception of steep slopes. The steep slopes are highly unlikely to contain cultural resources. The locations of previously recorded sites were inspected for a status update. Due to the density of recorded sites in the project study area, it is reasonable to expect additional cultural resources concealed by soil deposition and/or vegetation. The project study area contains a significant group of sites making up a village complex centered in the eastern part of the survey area. In the western part of the survey area are very dense midden deposits and burials have been found there. The other sites in the western area are relatively small and have the potential to provide information important to prehistory. The records search revealed eighteen sites previously recorded in the project study area (Table 3.11-1). Another thirty-nine sites are recorded within a one mile radius of the subject property. Additionally, the records search identified three historic sites within a one mile radius of the property. Thirty-four surveys and/or excavations within one mile of the project are on record at the Information Center, eight of these include portions of the proposed Ford Road project. Of eighteen archaeological sites previously recorded in the area, three (Ora-207, 208, and 480) could not be relocated and three (Ora-134, Ora-221, and Ora-222) have been destroyed. Ora- 221 and Ora-222 were located within the Ford Road impact area in Bonita Canyon near the intersection with the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. However, these two sites were destroyed by construction of Newport Coast Drive (Pelican Hill Road) after mitigation of impacts through data recovery. 9949aPR-11608-x 3-155 I TABLE 3.11-1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PREVIOUSLY RECORDED WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA r First Recorded Description Ora-106 1950 Village with dense Shell Ndden /219 1966 Ora-107 1950 Village Cemetery: Burials with bowls, mortars, pestles, bone awls, manos, metates, points, beads, flakes, shell Ora-124 1950 Shell Midden manos, scraper, flakes, shell Ora-134 1963 Shell Midden: manos, scraper, flakes, shell Ota-125 1963 Rock Shelter flakes, shell, fire affected rock, bone Ora-207 1966 Shell Midden: shell Ora-208 1966 Shell Midden: shell Ora-209 1966 Shell Midden: burials, hammetstones, cores, biface, point, beads, flakes Ora-210 1966 Rock Shelter flakes, shell fire affected rock Ora-211 1966 Rock Shelter hammerstone, shell Ora-220 1965 Shell Midden: ground stone, biface, flakes, burial, shell Ora-221 1966 Shell Midden: scraper, flakes, manos Ora-222 1966 Shell Midden: flakes, shell Ora-223 1%5 Shell Midden: mano, scraper, flakes, shell Ora-480 1974 Shell Midden: point, chopper, flakes, shell Ora-481 1974 Shell Midden: shell Ora-482 1974 Shell Midden: shell Ora-483 1974 Shell Midden: groundstone, fire affected rock, flakes, shell 9943-IM-116WX 3.156 Fifteen prehistoric sites and 8 isolates were located during the current field survey. Three new prehistoric sites (ICD-16, 17, and 19) were recorded during the field survey and twelve of the previously recorded sites were relocated and their current condition noted. Ora-106/219 appears to be the core of a Late Prehistoric village or residential base. It appears to have the highest densities of shell and animal bone and byproducts of tool manufacturing (chipped stone debitage). This may represent an area of secondary refuse where such byproducts were disposed of. The other sites around Ora-106/219 may be house locations and/or activity areas surrounding the central core. Ora-107, located directly north of Ora- 106/219, may have been the village cemetery. Ora-107 was excavated by the WPA and contained 25 burials. The other sites around Ora-106/219 which may represent associated residential/activity areas, include Ora-124/134, Ora-220, Ora-223, Ora482, and Ora483. Ora-209, the waterfall site, contains dense shell, some artifacts, and burials. Ora-210 and Ora-211 are rockshelters along the drainage above the waterfall and contain sparse shell deposits. ICD-16 and 19 are located downstream from the waterfall site (Ora-209) and contain shell buried in the alluvium. There is a possibility that this material was carried downstream from Ora-209 by flood episodes. Ora-481 (located to the east) and ICD-17 (located to the west), appear to be small camps. ICD-17 has been impacted by previous construction. Ora-106/219 (the village core) and Ora-209 (containing burials) are the most sensitive resources of the study area, as these sites have the greatest information recovery potential and the highest potential to contain burials. However, all fifteen sites verified during the field survey are potentially significant unless future subsurface testing indicates a lack of potential to address research questions. HISTORIC RESOURCES (Former Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square) Lange Financial Plaza is located at the northeast corner of the existing Ford Road/MacArthur Boulevard intersection. The mailing address for the complex is 2418 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660. The complex consists of two major building components: the main building complex with additions and the Peartree Building (see Figure 3.11-1). Associated features include a parking area, rail fencing, screen fencing, a small picnic area, paved walkways, a corral area, a volleyball court, and a variety of decorative plantings, mature tree, shrubs, and flowering plants. 9843-M-11608-X 3-157 PAWNG ' (APPROX. 1 80 SPACES) i' l YARD AREA t CORRAL AUG" ALIGN ENT B NTH -- LEGEND T ORIGINAL LINIT (1954) ® SOUTH WING ADDITION (PRIOR TO 1966) Q EAST WING ADDITION (PRIOR TO 1966) NORTH WING ADDITION (MOSTLY MOR TO 1956) ® PEARTREE BULDW (PRIOR TO 1966) Lange Financial Plaza FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR_ AGENCIES 3.11-1 THE KEITH COM?sNIES Low TABLE 3.11-2 SUMMARY OF EVAPACTS TO PREHISTORIC RESOURCES BY ALTERNATIVE Alternative Sites Impacted SiteT Site Area (m2) A(D) Ora-124 Residential 32,400* Ora-223 Residential 14270 ICD-16 Camp/Shell 4460 processing Ora-209 Residential 2,600 with burials Ora-210 Rock shelter 600 (low density) Ora-106/219 Village core 56,800 A(I) Ora-124 Residential 32,400* Ora-223 Residential 11,270 ICD-16 Camp/Shell 1,460 processing Ora-482 Residential 3,600 Ora-106/219 Village 56,800* A(I1) Ora-124 Residential 32,400* Ora-223 Residential 11,270 ICD-16 Camp/Shell 1,460 processing Ora-482 Residential 3,600 B(D) Ora-124 Residential 32,400* Ora-106/219 Village core 56,800 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-159 TABLE 3.11-2 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IWACTS TO PREHISTORIC RESOURCES BY ALTERNATIVE Alternative Sites I acted site IYAO Site Area (M2) Ora-482 Residential 3,600* Ora-481 Camp 2,300 ICD-19 Camp/Shell 400 processing Ora-209 Residential 2,600 with burials Ora-210 Rock shelter 600 (low density) B(1) Ora-124 Residential 321400* Ora-106/219 Village core 56,800 Ora-482 Residential 3,600* Ora-481 Camp 20300 ICD-19 Camp/Shell 400 processing B(II) Ora-124 Residential 32,400* Ora-106/219 Village core 56,800 Ora-482 Residential 3,600* Ora-481 Camp 2,300 ICD-19 Camp/Shell 400 processing Alt C3/C5 none * Does not impact center of site. 9843-IM 11608-X 3.160 I The main building complex consists of a portion of the original Buffalo Ranch. Construction on the original buildings associated with the Buffalo Ranch began in 1954. The original building features include a circular three story stylized silo, a two story gambrel roof barn -like building, and a one story wing with a rock chimney. Architectural features and details include wood shingle roofing, flat window openings with simple wood surrounds, board -and -batten siding, metal barn ventilators, a composite roof including shed, gambrel, conical and pitched roof shapes, and a lock rock cobble chimney. The original building units have been added both to the north, south, and east (rear) of the original unit. These additions are carried out in a stylistically compatible manner incorporating the use of pitched, flat and shed roof shapes, board -and -batten and vertical plank siding, simple wooden doorway and window surrounds, and shingle (asphalt) roofing. A new main entrance is located immediately to the south of the two story barn. This entrance consists of french doors and windows with an overhanging entry pediment. The Peartree Building is a one story building unit. Architectural features include a pitched roof, board -and -batten siding, and simple flat window and doorway surrounds. This building is designed in a manner compatible with that of the main building complex. It was constructed prior to 1966, and is associated with the Pereira period of occupancy. The entire complex (including all building additions) should be regarded as a commercial expression of the "Ranch Style" of architecture in the region. o The Newport Harbor Buffalo Ranch was begun in 1954 on land leased from the Irvine Company by Gene Clark and Dr. Roy Shipley. Gene Clark shipped 100 bison from his ranch in Kansas to the Buffalo Ranch and built the original main unit. For five years (between 1955 and 1960) the Buffalo Ranch operated as a wild west theme park which offered tourist theme rides, sold western merchandise and served buffalo burgers. The lease from the Irvine Company ended in 1960 and in 1962 the buildings were occupied by architect William L. Pereira. The Buffalo Ranch was unique as a tourist attraction (because of its use of buffalo and Wild West theme) in all of southern California. The theme park concept (but with different themes) was also used about the same time at Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm. The Buffalo Ranch never achieved the prominence of these other two Orange County theme parks, however, and remained relatively small. The Buffalo Ranch buildings were taken over by architect William Pereira in 1962 and renamed Urbanus Square. The one story additions to the original Buffalo Ranch building were added by Pereira before 1966, according to historical photos. Pereira was hired by the Irvine Company to prepare master plans for Irvine company development projects. While occupying Urbanus Square during the 1960s and 1970s, Pereira worked on master plans for a portion of the future City of Irvine, University of California -Irvine (UCI), and Newport Center in 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-161 Newport Beach.23 Pereira's planning concepts achieved national renown. In 1963 he was featured on the cover of Ti= magazine for his master planning in what would become the ' City of Irvine and UCI. This work may well be regarded as his crowning achievement, underscoring and taking to new heights the concept of a planned community. In 1981, Urbanus Square was leased to William Lange, president of the Lange Financial Corporation. Lange refurbished the original Buffalo Ranch dining room, and has maintained several additional areas virtually intact. The complex is now known as Lange Financial Plaza. The association of the Buffalo Ranch complex with William Pereira is of significance. According to Ray Watson, former Irvine Company president (quoted in the QrangCQyaly Regis , November 16, 1985), "There is no doubt in my mind that the single person most responsible for the City of Irvine and the university -- and the combination of the two -- is Bill ' Pereira." From his offices in this complex Pereira developed and laid out many of the concepts that are being carried out today. Nationwide, Irvine is still seen as a "model" for the planned community. In this respect, Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square is significant to the City of Irvine and the surrounding region. Locally, this is a property closely associated with William Pereira, and his planning of the conceptual development of the Irvine region in the 1960's. Significance Criteria Because CEQA does not provide criteria for evaluating the significance of historical structures, ' the federal criteria for eligibility of historic properties for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are employed in evaluating the Buffalo Ranch, even though this is not a federally regulated undertaking. The assessment of National Register eligibility is primarily _ based on federal guidelines contained in 36 CPR 60.4, Specifically: "The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is , present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, ' design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or, (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or, ' 0 23.Pareira'a lowrlm Report -T1w Irvine Ranch Maatar Plan, prepared for The Irvine Company, rune 19, 1961, indicates work on the beater , Plan prior to hla occupation of the 11uRa10 Ranch. 9943-IM-116MX 3.162 I (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or, (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history." Proper application of these guidelines will provide sufficient information for the transfer and subsequent application of survey results to almost any environmental document. In addition, "characterization" elements such as integrity, age (date of construction), aesthetics, historical associations, and surviving numbers (in regards to type, period, construction methods), have also been incorporated into the decision making process. Buildings less than 50 years old are usually not considered to be eligible unless they qualify under the Criteria of Exceptional Importance (see below). The consideration of aesthetics has been incorporated as it relates to the National Register Criterion C as described above. Historical association(s) as a "characterization" element is also directly related to the National Register Criteria A described above. Finally, because the Buffalo Ranch is a property which is less than 50 years old, it would qualify as eligible only if found to be of "exceptional importance." Specifically, a property within this time period must qualify under one or more of the following guidelines as outlined in the 1979 Department of the Interior Guidelines on "How to Evaluate and Nominate Potential National Register Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last 50 Years." 1. A property that has achieved significance within the last 50 years can be evaluated only when sufficient historical perspective exists to determine that the property is exceptionally important and will continue to retain that distinction in the future. 2. The phrase "exceptional importance" may be applied to the extraordinary importance of an event or to an entire category of resources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. 3. The phrase "exceptional importance" does not necessarily mean national significance. It is a measure of a properties significance within the appropriate geographical context, whether that context is local, state, or national. A property less than 50 years old must be considered as "historically" important, and not as a factor of contemporary use. The passage of some time is, therefore, necessary to establish the ultimate significance of a site less than 50 years old. 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-163 The following findings are made (in relation to the National Register of Historic Places criteria), based upon the results of both the field and archival portions of the survey conducted: Criterion A: Significant Events The original Buffalo Ranch complex is not associated with, any events of transcendent historic importance at a national, state, or local level. Urbanus Square is associated with the development of the Irvine region, but this development is most closely associated with architect William Pereira. As such, the property does not appear eligible in relation to Criterion A. Criterion B: Significant Persons The property is closely associated with architect William Pereira, and the design/planning firm of William L. Pereira & Associates. Nationwide, Pereira made numerous contributions to the master planned community/facility concept. The City of Irvine, and the associated Newport Center and UC Irvine campus may well, however, be regarded as his crowning achievement (Pereira appeared on the cover of Tim in 1963, in association with the Irvine project). Pereira reportedly worked on and directed the design for these projects in his silo office at the Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square facility. Built in 1954, and occupied by Pereira in 1962, the Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square complex is clearly less than 50 years old. The importance of the association with Pereira is not likely, however, to change over time, and it would appear that the property is eligible in relation to Criterion B upon consideration of the criteria of "exceptional importance" (see below). Criterion C: Distinctive Characteristics Buffalo Ranch is the earliest commercial expression of the "Ranch Style" of architecture in Irvine, and within the region originally comprising the Irvine Ranch. Designed as a "Wild West" tourist attraction, it incorporated such features as board -and -batten siding, rail fencing, metal barn ventilators, a rock chimney, shingle roofing, and a stylized barn silo. The majority of additions to the complex were carried out prior to 1966 (See Photo Appendix C), and they were built in a stylistically sympathetic manner. Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square/Lange Financial Plaza should, therefore, be regarded as significant not only as the earliest, but as an example of commercial expression of this architectural style in the region. Once again, this determination is not likely to change over time, and it would appear that the property is eligible in relation to Criterion C upon consideration of the criteria of "exceptional importance" (see below). [NOTE: The "Ranch Style" is a specific and well defined architectural style which originated in the late 1930s and was prominent throughout should not be confused with various other architectural styles which may appear on a ranch, as this may incorporate many different architectural styles.] Finally, application of Criterion C would 9943.7PAd1606-X 3-164 indicate that the most significant architectural component is the original (centrally located) portion of the main building. Criterion D: Potential to Yield Information This criterion is primarily related to archaeological properties. The Buffalo Ranch (as an architectural feature only) is not likely to yield information relevant to our prehistory or history. It does not, therefore, appear eligible in relation to Criterion D. Age: Date of Construction The property is less than 50 years of age. It does not appear eligible in general relation to this characterization element. It does, however, appear as significant upon consideration of the criteria of "exceptional importance" (see below). Aesthetics The building is an example of locallregional commercial expression of the "Ranch Style" of architecture. It does appear as significant in relation to this characterization element. Historical Associations The property has no transcendent historical association, and does not appear as significant in relation to this characterization element. Surviving Numbers The building is the earliest commercial expression of the "Ranch Style" of architecture, and is one of the few commercial examples of the style in the region. It does appear as significant in relation to this characterization element. Criteria of Exceptional Significance It is suggested that sufficient "passage of time" has taken place to evaluate the Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square building complex with sufficient historical perspective. It is the earliest expression of the "Ranch Style" of architecture on Irvine Company lands, and remains an expression of the style. It served as the local offices of architect William Pereira, the individual generally regarded as being most responsible for the conceptual planning of the surrounding region (Orange County Register November 16, 1985). These historical associations will not change over time. As such, the building complex should be regarded as meeting the criteria of "exceptional importance" at the local level of significance. It should be noted here that the criteria of exceptional importance are simply a measure of how and why a property achieves significance over time. This does not imply that a property that achieves such significance in less than 50 years is more important (or exceptional) than an older property which is also eligible for the National Register. 99434FR 116GB-X 3-165 In summary, the Buffalo Ranch building complex does appear potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places in relation to Criterion B and Criterion C. This determination is also made upon consideration of the criteria of "exceptional importance," as required for a property less than 50 years of age. It is noted that in the report prepared for the MacArthur Boulevard Widening Project by ISA Associates, The Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus Square was also evaluated as potentially eligible, but under Criteria A and B, rather than under Criteria B and C. In addition, the Criteria of Exceptional Importance for properties less than 50 years old were not applied. Further research has shown that Criteria B and C, in conjunction with the Criteria of Exceptional Importance, best represent the significant qualities of the Buffalo Ranch. Historic Documentation No systematic documentation of the Buffalo Ranch/Urban Square building complex consistent with the Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) has been undertaken. HABS is among the national historical architectural and engineering documentation programs of the National Park Service that promote documentation incorporated into the HABS/HAER collections in the Library of Congress. The goal of the collections is to provide architects, engineers, scholars, and interested members of the public with comprehensive documentation of buildings, sites, structures and objects of historical significance, and of significance in the growth and development of the built environment. NABS documentation usually consists of measured drawings, photographs and written data that provide a detailed record which reflects a property's significance. Measured drawings and properly executed photographs act as a form of insurance against fires and natural disasters by permitting the repair and, if necessary, reconstruction of historic structures damaged by such disasters. Documentation provides future researchers access to valuable information that otherwise would be lost through demolition. 3.11.2 IMPACTS PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Because there are no known, recorded occurrences of fossils within the path of any of the proposed alignment alternatives, project implementation will not have an adverse impact on any known paleontological resources. There are no differences between impacts associated with any of the project alignments. Where project excavations occur in the project study area, they may be expected to produce fossils from the following stratigraphic units., Los Trancos Member Topanga Formation (likely); Fernando Formation likely if exposed); marine terrace deposits (likely); nonmarine 9643-7PR 11606 X 3.166 I '1 terrace deposits (possibly). The Younger Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) is rated at very low sensitivity (no surveillance required during construction activities); Older Quaternary Alluvium is rated at low sensitivity (spot check required during construction activities); Quaternary marine terrace deposits are rated at moderate to high sensitivity (four hours per day of surveillance required during construction activities); Fernando Foundation is rated at high sensitivity (six hours per day of surveillance required during construction activities); the Paularino Member of Topanga Formation is rated at moderate sensitivity; and, the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation is rated at high sensitivity. The most sensitive area will be the westernmost segment (near MacArthur Boulevard). The eastern segment, between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the terminus of existing Ford Road is also considered to be sensitive. PREHISTORIC CULTURAL As indicated in Table 3.11-2, implementation of any alternative with direct or indirect connectors would affect prehistoric cultural resources (archaeological sites) within the project study area. Of the fifteen prehistoric cultural resources verified in the field, between four and seven will be impacted by Ford Road construction, depending on the alternative selected. Implementation of Alternative A(D) would affect six sites, two of which appear to be the most sensitive: the village core (Ora-106/219) and a known burial site (Ora-209). The A(I) Alternative would impact five sites. Although this alternative also impacts the village core, the edge of the site is impacted rather than the center as in Alternative A(D). Alternative A(I1) is the same as Alternative A(I) but does not impact the village core (Ora-106/219). Alternative B(D) would affect seven resource sites, two of these being the village core and the known burial site. Alternative B(I) would impact five sites, one of which is the village core. Alternative B(Il) is the same as Alternative B(1) with regard to impacts on cultural resources. To summarize, the survey of prehistoric cultural sites in the study area indicates there are no alignment alternatives capable of eliminating direct impacts to prehistoric cultural resources. Alternatives which avoid the two most sensitive, complex sites (Ora-106/219 and Ora-209) are preferable. The only Alternative which avoids both sites is Alternative A(11). The next best Alternative seems most likely, at this time, to be Alternative A(1) which avoids Ora-209 and only impacts the edge of Ora-106/219. However, this assessment could change once subsurface testing has been conducted. 9943-M-11608-X 3-167 I I HISTORIC RESOURCES Upon consideration of the findings of this report suggesting that the Buffalo Ranch/Urbanus ' Square/Lange Financial Plaza building complex is potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, it is concluded: Alignment Alternatives A(D). A(i). Atli): This project alternative cuts through the southern portion (an addition made before 1966) of the main building complex. It would involve both the destruction, or removal and relocation of significant building features (Figure 3.11-1). As such, it would require the implementation of one or more mitigation measures prior to initiation of any construction activity. i Alignment Alternatives NO). B(!), h(!!l: This project alternative cuts through the southern portion (an addition made before 1966) of the main building complex. It would involve both the destruction, or removal and relocation of significant building features (Figure 3.11-IJ. As such, it would require the implementation of one or more mitigation measures prior to initiation of any ' construction activity. Each of the alternatives would destroy, or remove and relocate only a portion of the building complex (the southern addition completed prior to July 1966), and it appears the remaining original (1954) portions of the building complex would not be taken. The original portions of the complex are shown in a picture of the Buffalo Ranch on page 57 of A Hundred Years of Yesterdays... (Appendix B: Historical Information). However, all of the additions were ' completed by July of 1966 (See photo Appendix C), and they must be regarded as significant in relation to the Pereira period of occupation which lasted from 1961 through the 1970s t (Criterion B). In brief, the entire complex should be regarded as a whole, and the taking of any portion of the existing structures should be seen as an impact requiring mitigation. 3.11.3 MITIGATION MEASURES PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES I Excavations to implement any of the project alternatives is minimized with proposed vertical and horizontal alignments. Nevertheless, paleontological construction monitoring along the N selected alignments should be conducted between 4 to 6 hours per day. Deposits and formations with moderate to high sensitivity should be monitored 4 hours per day. Deposits and formations with high sensitivity should be monitored 6 hours per day. Monitoring procedures are as follows: 61. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development, in accordance with Orange County policy, the paleontologic field inspectors should be at liberty to halt or redirect grading activities in the event that large specimens or concentrations are unearthed that require special handling/salvaging and to call in assistance for appraisal and for removal of specimens. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(1i), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C- 5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-116MX 3.168 62. During the construction -phase of development, all specimens collected shall be catalogued and item numbered and plotted on a copy of the grading plans map; shall be prepared (cleaned; protected, etc.) to the point of identification; and should be donated to the Natural History Foundation of Orange County for further disposition (placed in regional research collections; use in scientific research). (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 63. Prior final field inspection and approval, a report of findings shall be prepared and one copy will accompany the collection accessed into the Natural History Foundation of Orange County if specimens are collected. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(U), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 64. Prior to issuance of grading permits, all sites that could be impacted by the project shall be tested to determine subsurface boundaries and internal distribution of cultural material. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(U), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 65. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a testing program shall be developed by TCA to determine the potential of the cultural resources to provide information important in prehistory and to aid in planning a data recovery (mitigation) program. (Alignments A(D), A(]), A(U), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 66. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the test program shall be planned and implemented by an Orange County certified archaeologist for all cultural resources directly affected by the project. The test program should consist of the following: a. Mapping all surface features and artifacts with surveyor's instruments. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). b. Measurement and photography of all bedrock mortars and cupules, if present on site. (Alignments A(D), A(]), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). c. Collection of all artifacts visible on the surface. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). d. Conducting a subsurface test using a combination of postholes and excavation units to determine the depth, horizontal extent and contents of subsurface cultural material. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(U), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843.1PR-11608-X 3-169 11 e. A report presenting the results of the test program and containing recommended mitigation measures. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(n) B(Il), B(12)9 C-31 C-5 and No Project). f. I Specific recommendations as to the disposition of all artifacts recovered during the test program and grading, including measures assuring proper curation of artifacts at an appropriate museum or facility (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(1I), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 67. Prior to and during grading and construction all sites which are to be avoided and preserved should be flagged off and should not be used for equipment parking/access/turnaround or for material stockpiling. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Ii), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 68. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the mitigation measures recommended as a result of the test program (see 3.e above) must be completed. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 69. Monitoring for prehistoric resources along the selected alignment of new Ford Road and its connector(s) shall be conducted during project construction. An archaeologist should be on site at all times during grading until such times as bedrock is reached (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(M), A(11), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). The following mitigation measures have been developed following consultation of the Manual of Mitigation Measures (MOMM), as published by the National Park Service, and in consideration of project specific needs and demands. 70. Prior to the physical alteration of the Lange Financial Plaza/Buffalo Ranch building complex, the following historical preservation actions shall be completed. a The Lead Agency shall provide for the preferred on -site preservation of the most architecturally significant features of the existing buildings (i.e. the silo) along with a plan for the long term funding thereof. This does not preclude consideration of off -site alternatives if determined to be more desirable with concurrence by the City of Irvine. As part of this funding/preservation plan the determination shall be made of whether the building(s) should be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. 9643JM-11W6-X 3.170 11 11 11 MI 11 o Upon conclusion of the funding/preservation plan, the Lead Agency and the City of Irvine shall provide for the nomination of the Lange Financial Plaza/Buffalo Ranch site on the National Register of Historic places for consideration. fL—�- o Recordation of the entire Lange Financial Plaza/Buffalo Ranch building complex should be conducted by the Lead Agency in accordance with the Historic American Building Survey (NABS) specifications and guidelines which includes, but is not limited to, photographs, written documentation and reproduction of plans and drawings depicting the evolution of the site over time and•existing conditions, in order to be included in the U.S. Library of Congress ((Alignments A(D)„ A(I), A(1I), A(12), B(D), B(II), B(12). 71. A Coordination /Phasing Plan shall be prepared by the Lead Agency indicating the strategy for coordinating the MacArthur Boulevard Widening and the Ford Road Zp realignment concurrent with preservation plans developed for the Buffalo Ranch (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12, B(D), B(1), B(II), B(I2). 3.11.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS If, building features are moved and/or demolished as part of any mitigation program, the National Register eligibility of the Lange Financial Plaza/Urbanus Square (Former Buffalo Ranch) property may be adversely impacted. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will reduce other direct and indirect project impacts on cultural/scientific resources to a level of insignificance. 9843-MR-116N-X 3-171 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.12.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following section details the public services and utilities setting for the project. This section is based on telephone interviews with purveyors to the study area and on the Utilities chapter (Section 5.08) of the Physical Constraints Analysis prepared by Nolte and Associates herein incorporated by reference and on file with the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) at 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Most of the project study area is within the Irvine city limits and is under the jurisdiction of the City of Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Fire Department. Other jurisdictions servicing the vicinity include City of Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments and the Orange County Sheriff. Currently, the study area is served with: Water provided by the City of Newport Beach Water Department, electricity provided by (SCE) Southern California Edison, and telephone provided by (Pao Bell) Pacific Bell, at the developed portion of the project study area. The project study area is traversed by underground water mains belonging to Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Costa Mesa Consolidated Water District (CMCWD). The study area is also traversed by overhead telephone (Pac Bell) and electricity (SCE) lines. The Pao Bell Central Office building is located within the study area and Pac Bell underground main lines traverse the study area. Backbone gas (SCE) and water (IRWD) lines are adjacent to the project study area (to the south) underground in existing Ford Road (Figure 3.12-1). Police The City of Irvine Police Department currently has a total of 128 sworn officers and 62 non - sworn personnel. All law enforcement and crime prevention activities are based at the police headquarters located at the corner of Harvard and Alton in the City of Irvine. Law enforcement activities at the project study area are carried out through area policing (patrol dispatch related to crimes) and patrol beat for traffic enforcement. MacArthur Boulevard is an established patrol beat for traffic enforcement on Monday through Friday with up to three officers on patrol in the area. The City of Newport Beach currently has a total of 164 sworn officers and 70 non -sworn personnel. All law enforcement and crime prevention activities are based at the police headquarters located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive (Newport Center), Newport Beach. Existing Ford Road is part of a reporting district and a regular beat which is assigned one unit. Currently, the City of Newport Beach Police Department responds to calls in the northern 9643-JM-11606 X 3-172 i I r1 u 24 3 , I � I 11 li LY I portion of Harbor View development and in the Harbor Knoll development from existing Ford Road via MacArthur Boulevard. The MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road intersection facilities the fastest response times, as MacArthur Boulevard is a Major Arterial and provides the most direct access to this area. The Orange County Sheriff has jurisdiction over unincorporated property adjacent to the project study area to the east including the Coyote Canyon Landfill. Hire The City of Newport Beach Fire Department and the County of Orange Fire Department share responsibility for provision of fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous materials response and fire prevention services at the project study area and in the vicinity. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department primarily services the project study area from the Newport Center Station (#3) located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach. Additional response is available through the Corona del Mar Station (#5) located at Marguerite and Pacific Coast Highway, Corona del Mar and through the Balboa Island Station (#4). All City of Newport Beach Facilities are located Southwest of Ford Road. Access to Ford Road is typically taken from MacArthur Boulevard, as MacArthur Boulevard is a Major Arterial and provides the most direct access to Harbor Knoll and Harbor View developments from Ford Road. Currently response times to the project study area and vicinity are at or over the five minute standard established by the City. The County of Orange Fire Department primarily services the study area from its University Station (#4) located at California Street near Campus Drive. Water The project study area is within the jurisdiction of IRWD but is currently serviced by the City of Newport Beach Water Department. The Newport Beach Water Department obtains its water from MWD and stores and transports this water in a city owned and maintained facilities. A utilities easement bisects the project study area in a north/south direction and includes CMWD, MWD and IRWD mains. CMCWD has a 42 inch diameter steel water main at this location approximately 9 feet underground. MWD has a 36 inch diameter steel water main at this location approximately 4 feet underground. IRWD has a 24 inch water main at this location approximately 9 feet underground. (Figure 3.12-1). Other water facilities in the project study area include two east/west lines between the proposed SJHTC interchange and existing City of Newport Beach single-family residences: One is an 18 inch diameter IRWD line, and the other is a 54 inch diameter MWD line. An IRWD 24 inch diameter line is also part of the backbone system beneath existing Ford Road. I' 9943-1PR-1160&X 3-173 Gas Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas in the project vicinity. SCG has 8 inch diameter gas conduit beneath existing Ford Road and beneath the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. Electricity Southern California Edison provides electricity for existing buildings in and around the project study area. There are three existing overhead SCE lines located east of the Lange Financial C 41-., Plaza. Two of these lines are 66,000 volts and one is 12,500 volts. Telephone The Pacific Bell Central Office building is located at 4302 Ford Road, Irvine, Ca. Other Pao Bell facilities located within the project study area include overhead telephone lines located north of the Pao Bell building and overhead lines located between the existing terminus of Ford Road and the proposed STHTC interchange. There is also an existing 48 inch diameter major duct bank and two 24 inch diameter major duct banks located 60 feet beneath ground surface to the north and east of the Pao Bell building. 9943-IM-116WX 3-174 �R PACIFIC BELL CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING Utilities LEGEND """" COSTA MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT (STEEL) r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON OVERHEAD OVERHEAD TELEPHONE MAJOR TELEPHONE CONDUIT (PVC) •• •••••• 1 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (STEEL) --- IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT �; (STEEL) II FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES figure: 3.12-1 165 660 1% ® THE KEITH CONWANIES 0 330 990 I I 3.12.2 IMPACTS Police Construction activities associated with project implementation may increase the need for police services on a short-term temporary basis to ensure safety in the project study area. Currently, existing Ford Road is used as a travel route for school children (on bicycles and as pedestrians) who live near the project study area and attend Corona del Mar High School located east of Jamboree Road. Construction -related impacts would occur where there is interface between bicycles/pedestrians and construction activities and equipment. This is considered significant but can be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures. Project implementation will remove direct vehicular access to the Harbor View and Harbor Knoll areas from MacArthur Boulevard and existing Ford Road from the City of Newport Beach headquarters. For all project alternatives except I2, minimal increases are anticipated, as police responses to calls from this area will be routed up San Miguel Drive to Ford Road. For the 12 alternative increased response to Harbor Knoll would be significant due to proposed left -turn only allowed at the San Miguel Drive/Ford Road intersection. This is considered a significant adverse impact which would be reduced with implementation of emergency right - turn access at this location. In addition, project implementation will increase manpower and personnel requirements for the City of Irvine Police Department due to increased human activity and need for traffic safety and law enforcement in the study area. All project alternatives will remove pedestrian/bicycle access opportunities between existing Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This is a significant safety impact, which can be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Fire Construction activities associated with project implementation may increase the need for fire prevention and suppression on a short-term temporary basis. Project implementation will lengthen the response route for fire suppression trucks dispatched from the City of Newport Beach facilities, as direct access to the Northern portion of Harbor View and Harbor Knoll developments is from Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Fire suppression trucks would utilize San Miguel Drive or realigned Ford Road to access these areas, which could significantly increase response times beyond the accepted five minute standard. This impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of a fire access road from MacArthur Boulevard to existing Ford Road where the cul-de-sac is proposed. 11 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-176 11 Water Implementation of alignment A or B and connector Il will cross over the MWD (36"-four feet under ground), IRWD (24"-nine feet under ground) and CMCWD (42"-nine feet under ground) water mains (Figure 3.12-1). Due to the depth of placement of the IRWD and CMCWD lines no impacts are expected. All three water mains should be protected in place. There are no other impacts to water lines anticipated from implementation of any of the proposed alignment alternatives. Implementation of proposed Coyote Canyon access road will require lowering of the 18 inch IRWD water main located in the eastern section of the project study area. Gas Proposed connectors D2 and 12 cross an 8" gas PVC line with six to seven and one-half feet of cover at existing Ford Road (Figure 3.12-1). No impacts are anticipated. Electricity Implementation of either alignment A or B will conflict with the SCE overhead cables located to the east of the Lange Financial Plaza (Figure 3.12-1). Either proposed alignment will cross under these power lines and will impact one power pole at this location. Telephone Implementation of either alignment A or B will cross the existing major telephone ducts located underground to the north and west of the Pao building. Implementation of either alignment alternative would require a bridge and fill in this area which could impact these underground facilities. In addition, implementation of either alignment A or B will cross under the overhead telephone cable and will impact two poles located north of the Pac Bell building (Figure 3.12-1). Implementation of the proposed Coyote Canyon access road will cross under overhead telephone cables in this area. 3.12.3 MITIGATION MEASURES General to all Utilities 72. Prior to final inspection, all project -related improvements shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of the final plan. The provision of all improvements shall be consistent with applicable State and City codes and standards. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-S and No Project). 9943dPad160$-X 3-177 ' Police 73. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall demonstrate on all appropriate plans that road design emergency access, and project lighting and landscaping complies- with appropriate ordinances of the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach related to safety. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 74. Prior to issuance of street vacation permits for the westerly cul-de-sac of existing Ford Road and prior to issuance of grading and construction permits for the project, the Construction Management and Phasing Plan for the project and all project plans shall show that two-way continued pedestdan/bicycle and emergency access is provided along existing Ford Road to MacArthur Boulevard. In addition, the Construction Management and Phasing Plan shall show barriers between all modes of traffic on existing Ford Road and construction phase activities at all times. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Fire 75. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall ensure that all proposed facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable requirements of affected City and County Fire Departments. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 76. Prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall implement necessary provision for water availability at the study area to the satisfaction of the Fire Departments at the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and the County of Orange. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Water 77. Ongoing during project construction, all existing underground facilities, with the exception of the 18" line impacts by the proposed Coyote Canyon access road, shall be protected in place. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(I2), C- 3, C-5 and No Project). 78. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the 18" IRWD main located in the eastern portion of the study area shall be lowered by approximately six feet to eight feet to the satisfaction of the IRWD. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR 1160&X 3-178 ,i 79. Project improvement plans in the vicinity of any of MWD's facilities and rights -of -way shall be submitted to MWD for review and approval. Such plans shall demonstrate compliance with Metropolitan's guidelines (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(72), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-S and No Project). 80. Prior to beginning Ford Road construction activities, the TCA shall work with the Irvine 2p Ranch Water District (IRWD) regarding the feasibility of using reclaimed water during grading to control dust emissions (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II) B(11), C-3, C-S and No Project). Gas No mitigation measures are required. Electricity 81. Prior to commencement of construction and/or grading, power poles which conflict with the project alignment shall be field verified and relocated to the satisfaction of SCE. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), 13(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Telephone 82. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, the conduits for the major (24") telephone duct bank shall be field located and protected in place and ongoing during construction activities. If an embankment greater than 12 feet deep is to built over the telephone conduit, a reinforced concrete encasement approved by Pao Bell shall be constructed prior to issuance of construction permits. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), 13(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 83. Telephone poles and associated overhead lines north of the Pac Bell building which are impacted by the roadway alignment (A or B) shall be field verified prior to issuance of 93 4 grading or construction permits, and relocated to the satisfaction of Pac Bell (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-S and No Project). 84. Prior to final engineering of Coyote Canyon access road the telephone pole location and vertical clearance of overhead cable in the area of Coyote Canyon access road shall be surveyed and the proposed road realigned as necessary. (C-3 and C S). 3.12.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant unavoidable adverse public services and utilities impacts with , implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures. ,I 9643.7PR-11606-X 3-179 ' LI LI' ' 3.13 CONSTRUCTIONACTIWTIES ' 3.13.1 EXISTING ' The environmental setting for project construction activity is described in previous sections of this environmental document. In particular, the reader is referred to 3.1 Hydrology, 3.2 Biological Resources, 3.3 Topography, Geography and Soils, 3.9 Air Quality, 3.10 Noise, and ' 3.11 Cultural Scientific Resources. 3.13.2 IWACTS Construction activities necessary for the proposed project would include vegetation clearing, excavation, grading, embankment placements, drainage system construction, structure construction and surfacing. The construction impacts which would result from these activities would include a temporary increase in truck activity, fugitive dust and combustion emissions; noise, an increase in soil erosion, increased fire potential and view disruption. Traffic detours or delays may occur at the Ford Road intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. Ford Road will serve as a detour for Newport Coast Drive traffic during construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). With implementation of recommended mitigation measures ' there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts in this regard. Construction equipment will include excavation, pre -splitting, earth hauling, grading and paving equipment, concrete delivery and other trucks, cranes compressor and drill rigs. Construction staging areas for equipment and materials will be identified on the construction ' Management and Phasing Plan for the project and will be located in the project vicinity. Precise locations will be identified by the Design/Build Contractor prior to commencement of construction. Depending on the locations, staging activities may have significant secondary ' effects on wildlife habitat, sensitive species, cultural resources, and drainages due to noise, vibration and disruption of surface soils. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures from Section 3.3 there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts in this regard. [1 9943-JPR-11608-X 3-180 The project will result in the need for between 105,100 (Alignment BI) and 173,700 (Alignment AD) cubic yards of imported borrow material depending on the alignment selected (see Section 3.3 Topography, Geology and Soils.) The process of transporting, grading, and compacting fill material will have an impact that will be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The inability to balance cut and fill in the study area is attributed to roadway vertical design constraints, including avoidance of existing utilities. It is anticipated that borrow material will be obtained from excesses generated by nearby SWC construction. All fill import options would generate truck trips. The number of truck trips required to emplace the material has not been determined at this time. Construction impacts associated with truck trips and construction grading and hauling equipment include: traffic congestion, fugitive dust, combustion emissions, and noise. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts in this regard. An additional impact associated with grading and truck trip activity is that of potential disruption of existing views. The segments of project study area most subject to visual impacts are 1) the west end where realigned Ford Road would approach MacArthur Boulevard and 2) extreme east end where grading and truck activities in the vicinity of the project's connection with the SWC interchange would be visible from residential units in Newport Beach northern most Harbor View Knoll and Seawind units,) Construction activities will generally be screened from view of homes along existing Ford Road by intervening topography, blockwalls and trees within the parkway and/or rear yards. Significant impacts to views are not anticipated. Soil disturbance to clear the Ford Road project study area, and prepare the road base would generate considerable quantities of dust during the construction phase, Such "fugitive" dust generation depends on soil moisture, silt content, wind speed and disturbance level. For the project, the average daily dust generation rate of about 0.41 tons per day is predicted (by the EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors) adding 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre per month based on 21 acres and a two month grading period. This impact of grading represents a very localized and temporary one, and is .047 percent of regional emissions which are estimated at 87 tons per day released countywide. Project emissions are considered insignificant when compared with regional emissions. Construction activities would also cause combustion emissions to be released from construction equipment in the study area, truck trips associated with import of fill, and from off -site vehicles hauling concrete and other road -bed materials. The mobile nature of these sources is 9843-1PR IIWI-X 3-191 I I such that no single receptor is exposed for any length of time to the nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (C), and combustion particles released by the heavy equipment and trucks. Noticeable local impacts would be limited to occasional diesel exhaust odors. This is not considered a significant impact. RS . Construction noise represents a short-term impact on existing noise levels. The duration and level of construction noise is dependent on the different phases of activity: - Ground clearing including removal of existing rocks and soil, - Placement of foundations and roadbeds; - Erection of structures including bridges and retaining walls; - Finishing, including filling, grading, paving, landscaping and cleanup operations. Typically the first two phases, ground clearing and excavations, generate the highest noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators, can reach levels in the range of 67 dBA to 98 dBA at 50 feet. Noise levels for potential construction equipment are shown in Table 3-13-1 The noise levels shown are intended to provided a basic understanding of typical noise levels generated by construction equipment. The noise levels presented are at a reference distance of 50 feet. The construction equipment noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance away from the noise source. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels would be about 6 dBA less than the levels shown at 50 feet. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than shown. Intervening structures or topography can act as a noise barrier and reduce noise levels further. Although not identified on Table 3-13-1 haul trucks and equipment carriers accessing the project study area can also generate annoying levels of noise if passing by residential areas. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures from Section 3.10, significant unavoidable adverse impacts are not anticipated. A Construction Management and Phasing Plan will be required of the project which will detail all aspects of the construction phase, including locations of construction access to the study area. Construction access to the study area will be designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to residents along existing Ford Road and San Miguel Drive (e.g. construction access via Newport Coast Drive). Pre -splitting and drilling operations for rock removal may be required. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures from Section 3.3 significant unavoidable adverse impacts are not anticipated. 11 9843-JPR-11608-X 3-182 11 Newly constructed cut and fill slopes would cause a short-term increase in sediment erosion, particularly damaging to watersheds and streams. In addition, sediment can build up in streams over time. As noted in Section 3.1.1 previously, surface soils through the project study area are considered highly erodable. However, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting process soil erosion impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. This is discussed in Section 3.1. During construction, there is a possibility of random brush and grass fires from sparks, hot exhausts, or inadvertent accidents. Proposed mitigation measures (fire suppression methods) would reduce the potential for accidental fires during construction and contribute to overall fire prevention measures. Increased fire incidents arc a potential impact to wildlife in that they may burn wildlife habitat. Fire suppression methods would be employed during construction, thereby reducing the impact during this time. Long-term fire suppression efforts would continue after completion of the project as the fire service responsibility for the study area is shared between the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the County; therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Temporary traffic detours and delays may occur at the Ford Road intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. Delays may also occur at the proposed connector intersections with existing Ford Road. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts in this regard are not anticipated due to development and implementation of the Construction Management and Phasing Plan. 9643-JM 11606 X 3.193 I TABLE 3.13-1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at 50 feet 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compact (rollers) Front loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches Jackhammers and drills _ Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris,1979. I 3.13.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Specific mitigation measures have been identified in subsections to Chapter 3.0 (Noise, Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Hydrology). The following additional measures are included with which have particularly applicability to construction activities associated with the project: 85. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, construction staging areas will be identified in Construction Management and Phasing Plan, and located to avoid impacts to residences and other sensitive noise and air receptors. Such locations shall be reviewed by TCA/CDMG to assure avoidance of significant wildlife habitat, sensitive species and cultural resource sites. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1)1 B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 86. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development, trucks used for hauling borrow material to the study area will be covered to minimize loss of material. Flagmen will assist trucks moving into traffic, and peak hour truck travel will be minimized. Truck traffic will also be addressed in the Construction Management and Phasing Plan for the Ford Road project. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12)0 B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C- 3, C-5 and No Project), Air Quality mitigation measures have consolidated as Mitigation Measure N53. Likewise, noise mitigation measures have been consolidated as Mitigation Measures 55 through 58. 87. Prior to approval of final design engineering, plans shall show temporary mulching, seeding, landscaping, permanent erosion control or other suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during and after construction or other land disturbance. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(U), A(12), B(D), B([), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 88. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits , grading plans shall show that all project related grading will be performed in accordance with standards and criteria specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Orange County Grading Ordinance. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(12)0 C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9643.JM-116WX 3-165 i I 1 7 1 11 89. Prior to approval of final design, an erosion and siltation control plan will be prepared and submitted for review by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 90. Prior to commencement of grading activities, approved erosion and sediment control devices will be installed for all grading and filling. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 91. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit the precise grading plan shall show that cut and fill slopes will not be steeper than 2:1, unless a thorough geological and engineering analysis indicates that steeper slopes are safe and erosion control measures are specified. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 92. Prior to issuance of grading permits, all final design plans shall show that earthen or paved interceptors and diversions will be installed at the top of cut or fill slopes where there is a potential for surface runoff onto constructed slopes. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 93. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, all final project plans shall show that permanent benches and/or terrace drains will be installed in accordance with TCA/CDMG standards and noted on final plans. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 94. Prior to issuance of grading or construction of permits, all final project plans shall show that fills placed against watercourses will have suitable protection against erosion during storm flows, such as riprap, protective walls and culverts. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 95. During the construction phase of development, excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored in or alongside watercourses where the materials can be washed away by high water or storm runoff. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 96. During the construction -phase of development, spark arresters will be required on all construction equipment. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843JPA-1160&X 3-186 97. Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, parking and idling areas for construction equipment shall be graded or otherwise treated to remove brush and grass. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 98. Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, advance notice of temporary traffic disruptions will be provided to affected areas, businesses and the public. Construction Management and Phasing Plan for handling traffic during construction shall be prepared during final design of the project with input and approval of the County of Orange, and cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. These plans will include phasing of the construction activity to minimize traffic conflicts, detours and delays, and assure continued local access and through movements during construction. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project), 99. Project plans shall assure continued vehicular access to Tentative Parcels Map 91-TP-270 during construction of the Ford Road realignment and extension (Alignments A(D), A(l), q ► 24 A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Projects). 3.13.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE MACTS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. 9943.1PA-11604.X 3•197 4.0 LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT Section 15126(g) of the CEQA guidelines specifies what should be considered as potential growth -inducing impacts of a proposed action: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth.... Also, discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. According to Section 15126(g) of the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis, "must not assume that growth in any area is necessarily beneficially, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment." Growth inducement can take several forms. A project can remove barriers, provide access, or eliminate other constraints which encourage growth that has already been approved and anticipated through the General Plan process. This "planned" growth would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with the underlying assumption that an adequate supporting transportation system will be built. This is perhaps best described as accommodating or facilitating growth, but for the purpose of this section the term "inducing" is used. The Ford Road project cannot be considered growth -inducing to the extent that there is sufficient available capacity within existing Ford Road to accommodate planned development within Irvine Planning Area 26 without the proposed project. Further, existing Ford Road provides adequate access to accommodate such planned development without the proposed realignment and extension. The roadway extension is reflected in both the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach Circulation Plans, as well as the county's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In this sense, the project is not removing any significant barriers to future growth in the area, these master plans are designed to accommodate future development consistent with City and County General Plans (Figure 3.5-2 Irvine/Newport Beach General Plan Land Uses). The City of Irvine General Plan includes integrated Land Use and Conservation and Open Space Elements which define desired locations and densities of new growth, and provide for the phased dedication of open space. The General Plan provides a mechanism for assuring that growth in the vicinity of a realigned and extended Ford Road is consistent with planned densities and open space objectives. The roadway extension and realignment would not induce 9843dPR-11W8-X 4-1 II growth that is not already included in the General Plan. The extension and realignment of Ford Road would reroute traffic away from existing sensitive land uses and would allow for compatible planned development of the project study area according to the General Plan. 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts include the anticipated effects from the proposed project, implementation of the related projects listed in Section 1.6, the effects from build- out of City of Irvine General Plan including Planning Area 26, and build -out pursuant to the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Projects listed and discussed in Section 1.6 include the following: o SJHTC o MacArthur Boulevard Improvements o Newport Coast Drive o UCI Access/Bison Avenue Extension o SR-55/Costa Mesa Freeway Extension o SR-73/SR 55, I-405 Confluence Improvements o Ford Road Vicinity Park and Ride Lot Cumulative impact considerations for the project include contributions to increased noise and fossil fuel (gasoline) consumption associated with future traffic volumes accommodated by the proposed roadway realignment and extension. These impacts cannot be considered as strictly attributable to the project, inasmuch as traffic increases and related air, noise and fuel consumption would occur with or without the proposed roadway extension in a regional context. The results of the noise analyses (Section 3.10-2) indicate that future noise levels will exceed 65 CNEL in some areas at existing residential land uses in the project vicinity with or without the project. However, a review of previous Table 3.10-3 Future CNEL Noise Levels for cumulative conditions clearly indicates the proposed project alternative (A(D), A(l), A(Ii), B(D), B(l), B(I1)] are superior to both the 'No Build' and 'No Project' alternatives at most of the representative noise receptor locations evaluated. With respect to energy consumption (e.g. fuels, gasoline, etc.), no significant differences are anticipated between the project alternatives and future cumulative conditions without the project. There will be no adverse cumulative air quality impacts from project implementation. The extension and realignment of Ford Road is proposed as a mitigation measure for SJHTC and is part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan proposed for planning projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase vehicle speeds and reduce air pollution. The project is consistent with the AQMP and will not generate additional traffic or air emissions. 963-M-1109-X 11.2 lJ Cumulative increases in runoff, loss of undeveloped land and direct and indirect disturbances to sensitive species and associated habitat will also result from the proposed project and other areawide development. Again, however, these increases do not vary significantly from those which would otherwise occur without the project. No Build and No Project Alternatives 1 and 2, EIR Section 5.0.) 4.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY Implementation of the proposed project will have long-term impacts on land use in the City of Irvine insofar as commitment of the land to roadway use will preclude alternate land uses within the right of way. Short-term costs of the project include the commitment of financial and material resources and the adverse impacts of construction including temporary increases in noise, dust, and vehicular emissions associated with construction vehicles and temporary increases in sedimentation to the downstream drainage system. A short-term benefit resulting from the project would be the provision of construction -related employment. Over the long-term, the project will provide for increased vehicular movement and accessibility in the surrounding Newport Beach - Irvine area. Long-term effects of the project include a permanent change in the visual character of the route. After the initial short-term construction impacts, the project entails long-term impacts associated with the generation of air pollutants and noise, and maintenance of a public roadway. Planned growth served by the extension of Ford Road could produce a variety of indirect and long-term adverse impacts on the local environment (refer to previous Section 4.1 for a discussion of potential growth -related impacts). However, the impacts of this planned growth, although potentially adverse and long-term (e.g., loss of existing grazing and pasturelands) have been anticipated in County and City General Plans and will be mitigated to the extent feasible. In GPA 16 in the City of Irvine resulted in significant increases in committed open space areas as mitigation for future development, including the Bonita Canyon area. Development of the project would result in a reduction of existing grazing and pasture lands the disturbance of native and non-native vegetation and wildlife, permanent alterations to natural landforms and the possible disruption of cultural and scientific resources. Additionally, there will be an irretrievable commitment of capital (private and public), labor, and materials such as concrete, asphalt, sand, gravel, etc. used in construction. There will be an expenditure of finite energy resources in the construction of the road as well as in the extraction, production and fabrication of construction materials. 9N3-1PR-11W&X 4-3 m 4.4 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED Construction of the planned roadway improvements will result in the short-term, essentially irretrievable commitment of a variety of non-renewable or slowly renewable resources. These resources will include sand and gravel, asphalt, lumber and other forest products, petrochemical construction materials, metals, fossil fuels, and water. Over the long term, resource commitment for roadway maintenance and operation will include the use of asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, fossil fuels, and water. Landscaped right-of-ways will also require a commitment to continued maintenance and water usage. The environmental changes produced by implementation of the project will occur mainly as a result of alterations to the physical environment in the form of continued commitment of land, construction materials and community services. There will be an irretrievable commitment of capital, labor, and materials used in construction. Also, to the extent that the roadway accommodates an increase in vehicular traffic, there will be a local increase in the consumption of energy supplies such as petroleum and natural gas. However, this increase is expected to occur in the region with or without the proposed project. Fossil Fuel based energy is believed to be an increasingly scarce resource, and the proposed improvements would necessitate further commitment of this resource. Energy use is divided into two parts: 1) direct energy and 2) indirect energy. Direct energy is energy consumed by vehicular travel. It is the gasoline consumed through use of automobiles, buses and trucks. Indirect energy is energy used for road construction, maintenance and vehicular manufacturing. Between the project alternatives [(No Project, A(1), A(11), A(D), B(1), B(Ii) and B(D)] there is no essential difference in energy consumption. Indirect energy consumption would be a one-time energy expenditure. The No Project alternative represents the lowest indirect energy expenditure from implementation of the project. There would be no significant difference between energy expenditures from the other alternatives (AI, AD, BI, BD). Project implementation represents a short and long-term commitment of direct and indirect energy. Approval and subsequent development of the proposed project will result in an irretrievable commitment of energy supplies and other resources. These energy resource demands will be used for project construction and maintenance. This project represents a significant reduction in the long-term commitment of fossil fuel resources compared with the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative represents a 15, 265 vehicle miles travelled (VMI) per day increase over the build alternatives. VMT provides a measure of energy consumption through the consumption of gasoline and other fuels. 9943•)PR-11506-X 4.4 I 0 J I I u I I_l I I l 1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Alternatives to the Ford Road realignment and extension Alternatives A(D), A(1), A(11), B(D), B(I) and B(11) are evaluated in this section. 5.1 CIRCULATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES For comparative purposes, the 'Base Case' circulation system assumed in this analysis reflects Alternative B(I) and is generally consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). An exception to the MPAH is San Joaquin Hills Road east of Marguerite, assumed here as four lanes instead of six. Also, the project alternative B(1) represents a change from the MPAH which depicts a direct connection of Ford Road to San Miguel Drive. The Base Case in this analysis assumes an indirect connection (i.e., indirect connectors I-1 and I-2 with alignment B). To show the effect of local changes and/or modifications to the Base Case circulation system , four network alternatives related to the proposed realignment of Ford Road were examined and each is summarized below: Alternative 1: No Build: Maintain existing Ford Road as is (no connection to SJHTC). Alternative 2: No Project: Existing MPAH (no realignment but with connection to SJHTC). Alternative 3: Realignment of Ford Road so it connects to MacArthur Boulevard between Bison and Ford Roads. Alternative 4: Realignment of Ford Road connects directly to Bison Road. Figure 5.1-1 illustrates these alternatives, and Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-5 illustrate the corresponding comparative ADT volumes. Table 5.1 summarizes the peak hour intersection ICU values. These ICU calculations assume the Base Case lane assumptions (based on current City and County General Plans) for each network alternative and the following sections discuss the implications of each. Discussion of other alternatives, which were identified during the environmental process, is included in Section 5.2 herein. These alternatives were rejected from further consideration because they conflict with the County's MPAH and local Circulation Elements and fail to meet the basic circulation objectives of the project. 9843-JFR-11608-X 5-1 ALT. Al ALT. BI BA8E1 ALIGNINMDNIREO ••'• s•ti 11e0 �. CONNECTION .,'4s�♦•. ALIGNMENT "IT' DU ,. WITH INDIRECT .�♦ •jO" 4� �•• 110 CONNECTION 06+ DU 490 ♦TVR Y p ALT. 1 ALT. 2 NO BUILD NO PROJECT (MPAH) 400 1 9U yo_ 4� 16E0 TV Orrt t� 'Q Tsr D° om ALT. 3 � ALT. 4 • ALIGNMENT ♦xm 400 .��, WR EDCTTEOCT �whj••• ALIGNMENT IG INDIRECT nu ,•�♦♦ • ♦ �� •♦♦ CONNECTION �' ♦ ' elm "r Oil DU 4TV 90 y+� QU= DWek1g Lirfts =Mnnetl k1terChanOe= 1 00 Sq. t. SOURCE: AUSTWOUST ASSOC., INC. Circulation System Alternatives FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT figure: 5.1 THE K11111 COMPANIES °27 BASE S � 1� 7 50 p !3 £T J ry ry 139 N 27 31 r B 2 V� ... m g ,20 12 my nr ? 16 N 4 17 14 14 yH N 13 1 J b 54 46 S CAAIT 4 a r R 36 HWWAY 9 ALTERNATIVE 1 h 4Y 7 A so N roN ,°l 13& �20 n 3 A, �p 8 i 29 {dID 'f' lJ g 4�cw s+� m 2.4 y5 i I6RORl' 3 F b^ �L�ar 20 �3 15 N P g r P 20 F1 14 14 5r„ �+ 13 N ! c 54 46 7� roc CPM I 36 Np11MY • =Intersection Deficiency AUUMU= AVAIIN-rUUAI At.ODU., 6VU. Future 2010 ADT Volumes (000's) figure:5-2 Alternative 1 (No Build) FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT r-r l 27 .s BASE 50 ice, rf 139 —139 — — —19 in 7 4 r �( b y 1 so r 16 U N J 17 14 14 vN 13 p J � �l 54 46 " 5.. .rG COAST it e Po 36 "MOAT 10 z7 ALTERNATIVE 2 49 N 2 b J f my m 1 �1 16 ' $ 17 14 14 wo 13 t v , 54 46 f CO y? q 36 MONMY — Intersection Deficiency 2010 ADT Volumes (000"s) figure: 5-3 Alternative 2 (No Project) FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KEITH COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES " 27 s BASE 7 J 50' pm Ju _ _ 139 H h 139 ".. ss 135 ,A m 27 S ti 12 r „ s1 ry 0 ' 1J 14 4rG y 2 v� �p 0. STi 1� MOrQf g La 20 12 76 ry'L'dti' N � P 17 14 14 5N N m J b Jr 13 54 48 c ro 3\ P1f CD *7 36 32 M p MST ° ?7 ALTERNATIVE 3 4 JS 7 41' 139 n 139 — _ ss � 135 � � �sn7o ss �n 28 m R d � 1,Hpys 4 11LIIPat1 va � ' � 19 72 YT k i6 Fn 'L� P 14 14 17 5µ N m � b 73 ! e 54 48 $ ro y\ P c coot t2 � 36 3 M "Y � =Intersection Deficiency SOURCE: AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOC., INC. 2010 ADT Volumes (000's) figure: 5-4 Alternative 3 FORD ROAD EXTENSION THE KErM COMPANIES AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES TABLE 5-1 2010 ICU SUMMARY (ALTERNATIVES) mem BASE ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4 INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ' 34. Jamboree i University 35. Jamboree i Bison .68 .60 .86, .74 .67 .67 .93 .84 .66 .61 .87 .73 .68 :62 .87 .78 .71 .72 .92 .78 37. MacArthur i Bison .62 .78 .83 1.03 .72 .81 .67 .84 .85 .91 38. Jamboree i Ford .83 .93 .93 .83 .87 .92 .87 .92 .% .81 39. MacArthur i Ford .55 .83 .57 .83 .57 .83 .41 .68 .K .59 40. Jamboree i SJN Rd .74 .78 .61 .63 .74 .78 .74 .78 .74 .77 41. Jamboree i Santa Barbara .61 .70 .48 .69 .60 .70 .60 .70 .61 .69 42. Jamboree i PCN .77 .80 .73 .73 .77 .80 .77 JO .78 .79 43. Santa Cruz i SJN Rd .35 .41 .36 .41 .36 .41 .36 .41 .36 .40 ' K. Santa Ross i SJN Rd .29 .47 .29- .46- .29- .46 .31 .45 .29 .47 45. MacArthur i SJM Rd .66 .83 .66 .81 .64 .80 .66 .81 .66 .75 46. MacArthur i San Miguel .73 .71 .75 .73 .75 .71 .73 .71 .78 .75 47. Newport Center i PCN .52 .41 .53 .41 .52 .40 .52 .40 .52 .40 ' 49. MacArthur i PCN .55 .54 .54 .50 .54 .54 .55 .54 .55 .54 50. San Miguel i SJN Rd .53 .57 .57 .66 .54 .59 .54 .59 .57 .65 $2. Marguerite i SJN Rd .58 .46 .61 .55 .59 .47 .59 .47 .62 .49 53. Marguerite i PCN .74 .75 .70 .71 .74 .73 .74 .75 .75 .75 I 58. Newport Coast i PCN .52 .67 .53 .65 .53 .67 .53 .67 .54 .67 59. Spyglass Bill i SJN Rd .42 .31 .46 .42 .K .34 .42 .33 .45 .35 60. San Miguel It Spyglass Mill .14 .18 .12 .16 .17 .22 .13 .21 .19 .25 63. Gabrielino i Bonita Cyn 64. Culver Or i Bonita Cyn .82 .81 .69 .69 .81 .81 .81 .82 .82 .78 .63 65. Newport Coast i SJN Rd .55 .74 .62 .67 .57 .79 .63 .76 .58 .74 .64 .66 .59 .74 .65 .66 .61 .76 .68 66. Bison i SJNTC EB Ramps .63 .67 .33 .69 .68 .67 .64 .68 .70 .68 67. Bison i SJNTC WB Ramps .53 .57 .68 .68 .54 .60 .53 .59 .58 .66 68. Ford i SJNTC Ell Ramps .40 .74 .20 .62 .37 .74 .37 .72 .33 .65 69. Ford i SJNTC WB Ramps .69 .67 .41 .36 .57 .60 .67 .65 .60 .62 71. Newport Coast i SJNTC Ell .48 .74 .49 .76 .47 .74 .48 .74 .47 .75 73. Newport Coast i SJNTC WS .54 .54 .56 .62 .54 .54 .54 .56 .55 .56 74. Sand Cyn i SJNTC ES Ramps .60 .68 .65 .70 .61 .69 .60 .68 .62 .69 75. Said Cyn It SJNTC WB Ramps .69 .59 .70 .55 .68 .58 .68 .58 .64 .58 128. Indirect W i Ford .27 .22 -- -- .23 .20 .23 .26 129. Indirect W i New Ford .72 .60 - - .72 .60 .58 .50 130. San Miguat i Ford .23 .27 .25 .24 .36 :: .61 :: .22 .31 .28 .36 131. Indirect E i New Ford .58 .83 .60 .88 .39 .57 133. New ford i Bison 76 .81 135. Newport Nitta W i Ford .57 .41 .64 .51 ' 137. Indirect E i Ford .32 .40 -• -- •- -- .28 .K .42 .60 139. Newport Nitta E i Ford .16 .18 .35 .32 .41 .43 .16 .15 .16 .19 140. MacArthur i New Ford -- -- -- -- •• -• .87 .89 -- •- ILI II �I 'I Notes: 1. See Figure 3.8-2 for Intersection Location Map. 2. Level of Service Ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 s .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F 3. Base " 2010 with Indirect Connection (Alignment "B") Alt. 1 " 2010 (No Build) ALt. 2 " 2010 (No Project) Att. 3 . (Alternative Atigrment to MacArthur) Alt. 4 s (Alternative Alignment to Bison) BB _J 1: 5.1.1 ALTERNATIVE 1(NO BUILD) This alternative assumes the buildout configuration of Ford Road does not change from the existing configuration (no realignment and no connection to SJHTC). Daily traffic volumes on Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard increase from 25,000 vehicles per day (VPD) in the Base Case to 29,000 VPD due to the diminished access to the SJHTC under this alternative. Other increases up to 16,000 VPD occur on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road north of Ford Road, on Bison Road„ and on Newport Coast Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road. Similar increases are evident in the corresponding peak hour traffic volumes. Significant changes to ICU values occur at several intersections including two where capacity deficiencies would occur. These include MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Road in the PM peak hour (ICU is increased from .78 in the Base Case to 1.03 under Alternative 1), and Jamboree Road at Ford Road in the AM peak hour (ICU is increased from .83 in the Base Case to .93 in Alternative 1). Noise This alternative represents a worst case alternative for noise impacts at eight of the ten noise measurement locations, including all of the Harbor View Homes locations analyzed in the projects vicinity. (See Section 3.10 Noise.) These locations included all residential locations along existing Ford Road except Site 1 east of the intersection of Ford Road and Hillside Drive. With respect to other alternatives considered, except Alternatives B(l) and 9(12), the No Build Alternative minimizes project noise and cumulative noise impacts at Site 1 (Hill View Drive - Harbor View Knoll) and Site 9 (Hilltop Drive - Seawind). Noise levels from the B(12) alignment exceed the No Build alternative for Sites 3 and 4 (1st row of Harbor View Homes along Ford Road near the greenbelt), Sites 7 and 8 (2nd row Harbor View Homes) and Site 9 (interior Harbor View Knoll. Noise levels from the B(11) alignment exceed the No Build Alternative for Site 8 (2nd row Harbor View Homes). Further, the No Build Alternative eliminates construction phase noise impacts. Air Quality Carbon monoxide concentrations (1-hour and 8-hour) at the various receptors analyzed in the project vicinity average slightly higher for the No Build Alternative than the project alternatives (A(D), A(l), A(I1), B(D), B (1) and B(11). Other Environmental Resources The No Build Alternative eliminates or minimize impacts to hydrology, biological resources, topography/landform, views, and cultural resources, in comparison with the project build alternatives A or B, with connectors. 9943-rra usoe-x 54 II ' Of particular significance are avoidance of impacts to biological resources, such as loss of coastal sage scrub and California gnatcatcher habitat, and cumulative impacts to least Bell's Vireo nesting locations in the Bonita Reservoir. Also, the No Build Alternative would avoid impacts to recorded prehistoric cultural sites and to the historically significant Lange Financial Plaza (Old Buffalo Ranch complex). Conclusion The No Build Alternative is inconsistent with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the General Plan Circulation Elements of both its cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. It fails to meet key project objectives as identified in Section 2.4. While the No Build Alternative would avoid or reduce impacts in several resource categories, it would increase noise impacts for most residential locations along existing Ford Road and would result in adverse levels of service at several key roadway segments and intersections in the project vicinity. This alternative should be rejected from further consideration. 5.1.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (NO ]PROJECT) The "No Project" alternative assumes the completion of the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). This does not include a realignment of Ford Road, but would entail its extension to an interchange with the SJHTC. ' Daily traffic volumes on Ford Road east of San Miguel Drive are 25,000 VPD, just 3,000 less than in the Base Case (these trips would instead. use MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Road). The most significant changes to peak hour traffic volumes from the Base Case are on Ford Road itself. Traffic volume changes on the remainder of the circulation system due to this alternative are nominal. Noise Impacts on studied noise receptor locations are comparable to those of the No Build ' Alternative in that CNEL levels would exceed those of the build alternatives A(D), A(I), B(D) and B(I) at eight of the ten locations evaluated (see Table 3.10-3), including Harbor View Knoll and all but one of the Harbor View Homes locations. (Site 8). These locations include ' all residential locations along existing Ford Road (Sites 1 through 6), as well as Site 10 (Southwest corner of Newport Hills Drive West and Port Sheffield Place - Harbor View ' Homes). Impacts at Sites 7 and 8 (2nd row of homes away from Ford Road at 1927 Port Cardiff Place - Harbor View Homes) would slightly though not significantly exceed Alternatives A(D) and A(I), but would be slightly, though not significantly less than B(D) or ' B(I). Noise at Site 9 (Hilltop Drive-Seawind) would be virtually the same as with A(D), A(I), B(D) or B(I). With regard to the B(I2) alignments, noise levels from the No Project alternative will be higher at Sites 3,4,7 and 8 (representing Harbor View Homes). With 9943-JPR-11608-X 5-9 regard to the B(1), alignment noise levels from the No Project alternative will be higher at Site 8 (2nd Row of houses within Harbor View Homes) and Site 9 (interior harbor View Knoll). Air Quality Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in the highest average 1-hour and 8- hour CO concentrations for monitored receptors. Other Environmental Resources The No Project Alternative reduces impacts to cultural/historic resources, coastal sage scrub and California gnatcatcher habitat, and topography/landform. This alternative avoids impacts to the historically significant Lange Financial Plaza complex (Old Buffalo Ranch) and avoids direct impacts to prehistoric cultural sites. The No Project Alternative minimizes impacts to coastal sage habitat and sage scrub -dependent sensitive species such as California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and San Diego horned lizard, relative to all the A alignment alternatives but is not significantly different than any of the B alignment alternatives. The No Project Alternative would minimize potential erosion and sedimentation effects in comparison with build alternatives A(D), A(i), A01), B(D), B(I)and B(11). No flood hazards or reductions in flood control capacity would occur with an extension which avoids the reservoir. Conclusion The No Project Alternative is completely consistent with only the County's N PAH. It differs from the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach Circulation Elements in that it includes only a Ford Road extension to an interchange with SIHTC without a realignment as expressed in these elements. The No Project Alternative could also serve as a detour for Newport Coast Drive traffic during construction of SIHTC -- one of the proposed project objectives. This alternative would not, however, effectively mitigate noise and air quality impacts to residential locations along existing Ford Road -- a key objective of the proposed project alternative alignments. Notwithstanding the increased noise and local air quality impacts to residences along existing Ford Road, the No Project Alternative should be considered an Environmentally Superior Alternative in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15126(d). This alternative should not rejected from further consideration at this time. 9943•IM-116WX 540 5.1.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 features the realignment of Ford Road connecting into MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Road and existing Ford Road. An indirect connection of the realigned roadway to San Miguel Drive is also assumed. Daily traffic volumes on Ford Road are approximately 24,000 VPD east of San Miguel Drive, a reduction of 4,000 VPD from the Base Case. Daily volumes on MacArthur Boulevard between the new Ford Road intersection and the existing Ford Road intersection are approximately 67,000 VPD„ an increase of 5,000 VPD from the Base Case. Other changes on the remainder of the circulation system, compared to the Base Case, are nominal. Peak hour impacts of this alternative are also largely localized. The ICUs at MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Road are increased from .62 and .78 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in the Base Case to .67 and .84, respectively. At MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road, the ICUs are reduced from .55 and .83 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in the Base Case to .41 and .68, respectively. Noise No precise alignment for this alternative has been established and no further CNEL noise levels have been estimated. However, it is anticipated that noise levels could be comparable to Alignments A(l) or BO) at receptors along Ford Road and interior residential locations east of Newport Hills Drive West. At receptor sites west of Newport Hills Drive West (Sites 2 and 10) Alternative 3 could, depending on its specific alignment, result in slightly reduced noise levels by virtue of its intersection with MacArthur Boulevard north of Lange Financial Plaza. Air Quality No projections of CO 1-hour and 8-hour concentration have been made for this alternative or no specific alignment has been determined. It is anticipated that would result in construction phase and long term impacts similar to Alternatives A or B. Other Environmental Resources Though no specific alignment for this alternative has been identified, it is anticipated that resource impacts would be comparable to Alignment A with respect to hydrology, biological resources, topography/land form, prehistoric cultural sites and views. The alignment would avoid the Lange Financial Plaza complex and associated impacts to historical values. 9843-IM-1160&X 5-11 Other Circulation Considerations Alternative 3 would result in creating two "T" intersections along MacArthur Boulevard -- one at the Alternative 3 intersection with MacArthur Boulevard, and the other at the existing Ford Road (east of Jamboree Road) intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. This would increase vehicular turning movement requirements along MacArthur Boulevard and reduce traffic flow and capacity at peak periods along this major arterial. The intersection created by new Ford Road at MacArthur Boulevard would operate at close to unacceptable levels (0.87 AM ICU and 0.89 PM ICU). It would also position the new Ford Road intersection on a stretch of MacArthur Boulevard with significant grade changes, thereby potentially increasing vehicular safety hazards and risk of accidents. Alternative 3 deviates from the basic traffic engineering principle of a grid of streets to maximize traffic flow and efficiency. This deviation is inconsistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and the General Plans of Irvine and Newport Beach. As shown in Figure 5-4, this deviation also shifts some trips to other arterials. Alternative 3 also creates delays and inconvenience for local travelers destined for locations along Jamboree Road, such as Corona del Mar High School. These regular users of Ford Road from Harbor View Homes, Seawind, Harbor Ridge and other residential locations east of MacArthur Boulevard, would be forced into an indirect travel pattern on a heavily traveled roadway that will be at or near capacity. These extra turning movements and potential delays represent an adverse impact on the circulation system. Land Use Alternate 3 avoids direct conflicts with the Lange Financial Plaza, eliminating building demolition or displacement and relocation requirements. However, this alignment completely bisects an otherwise coherent planning area designated for Medium -High Density Residential and Mixed Use in the City of Irvine General Plan. This impact on land use plans is significant, since regional through traffic would be routed through the middle of the future residential area rather than around it as envisioned by the City of Irvine General Plan. Conclusion This alternative creates adverse impacts with respect to land use plans, circulation, and safety along MacArthur Boulevard. 'While Alternative 3 impacts with respect to several other resource categories may be comparable to, or less than, those of the build alternative Alignments A and B, Alternative 3 should be rejected from further consideration at this time. 9643im-11609-X 5.12 5.1.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 Alternative 4 features the realignment of Ford Road connecting directly into Bison Avenue. The indirect connection of the realigned roadway to San Miguel Drive is also assumed. Daily traffic volumes on Ford Road south of the SJHTC are reduced from 28,000 VPD in the Base Case to approximately 18,000 VPD. Reductions up to 3,000 VPD also occur on MacArthur Boulevard north and south of the existing Ford Road. Converse increases appear along San Miguel Drive, Bison Avenue, and Newport Coast Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road. Corresponding increases to the peak hour traffic volumes occur at MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue (PM ICU is increased from .78 in the Base Case to .91), and at Jamboree Road and Ford Road (AM ICU is increased from .83 in the Base Case to .96). Noise This alternative would result in increased vehicular traffic noise along San Miguel Drive, Bison Road and Newport Coast Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road. As traffic volumes are also projected to increase on existing Ford Road compared with its Base Case Alternatives A or B, Noise impacts would meet or exceed those estimated for these alternatives. Air Resources Impacts to receptors along San Miguel Drive, Bison Drive and Newport Coast Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road would be expected to increase relative to Base Case Alternatives. CO 1- hour concentrations at identified deficient intersections would also be increased. Other Environmental Alternative 4 resource impacts would meet or exceed those of the Base Case Alignments A and B, with the exception of avoidance of the Large Financial Plaza complex (Old Buffalo Ranch). The alignment would parallel and potentially impact the westerly drainage tributary to Bonita Creek within the study area, and would require significant grading to negotiate the substantial elevation changes between upper Planning Area 26 and lower Planning Area 26 at Bison Avenue. Land Use This alignment represents a significant adverse impact to land use plans by dividing the planning area into several irregularly shaped parcels impacted by arterial roads or connectors. It would route regional through traffic through the middle of a planned residential area, rather than around it as envisioned by the City of Irvine General Plan. 9943-1FR-11608-X 5-13 n Other Circulation Considerations Like Alternative 3, Alternative 4 deviates from the basic traffic engineering principle of a grid of streets to maximize traffic flow and efficiencies. More importantly, Alternative 4 would tie into the segment of Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and the SJHTC which is very short and constrained, with little or no room to fit an intersection. The lack of room for weaving or turn pocket storage could contribute to accidents and congestion. Conclusion Alternative 4 results in significant traffic and circulation deficiencies and fails to meet any of the proposed project objectives. It is rejected from further consideration. 5.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED While the ultimate location for the planned Ford Road interchange with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) has been determined pursuant to the SJHTC EIR/EIS, discussions previously occurred regarding an alternative location for the interchange. The alternative site identified was to be situated between the currently approved site and the planned Bison Avenue interchange (Figure 5-6). This alternative was also identified in public comments at the December 13, 1990 public scoping meeting for the EIR. Minimum requirements for weaving distance on the SJHTC make this alternative infeasible. Other public scoping meeting alternatives included: 1) A realignment of Ford Road easterly from MacArthur Boulevard to an interchange in the vicinity of the proposed Bison Avenue interchange with SJHTC (thereby deleting the planned Bison Avenue extension east of MacArthur Boulevard); and 2) a realignment of Ford Road from its planned interchange with SJHTC westerly to a 4-way intersection with MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue (thereby deleting the planned extension of Bison Avenue east of MacArthur Boulevard). These alternatives are not feasible, because they conflict with the County's MPAH and local Circulation Elements, and fail to meet basic circulation objectives of the proposed project. Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and the SJHTC is planned to accommodate in excess of 30,000 ADT in the future. This link cannot be replaced by any Ford Road alternatives without resultant overloading of remaining nearby arterials and intersections in the MPAH network. These alternatives are rejected from further consideration. I LI 11 I I 9843-JPR-11608.X 3-14 I RELOCATED INTERCHANGE I REALIGNMENT TO BISON (#1) I REALIGNMENT TO BISON (#2) Realignment Variations Considered figure: 5-6 FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT THE 1111M COMPANIES Tzz'/.F-� r r SECTION BB PROPOSED FORD* ROAD ALIGNMENT B L W i A , 00 —j -. /rzo' .0' SECTION AA ,.n LSE Indirect Connector Option 5-7 (Between San Miguel Drive and Mkide Drive) FORD ROAD EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Indirect Connector Option (aligned with Newport Hills Shopping Center driveway. This option would align the easterly indirect connector with the shopping center driveway (Figure 5-7), rather than with Hillside Drive as in the (I) and (12) alternatives evaluated in Section 3.8.2. Although the resulting intersection spacing with Hillside Drive and San Miguel Drive is minimal, necessary 'ToP(4AL_ turning movements and forecast traffic volumes through this configuration can be accommodated. KE6i'�t This option may also have the potential of reducing non-residential traffic on Hillside Drive. This option is feasible from a traffic circulation standpoint, does not differ from other easterly indirect connector options with respect to other environmental impacts, and is retained for further consideration. 5.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Discussion The identification of the environmentally superior alternative is a requirement under CEQA. This discussion on the environmentally superior alternative is provided consistent with CEQA requirements. Impact categories addressed throughout this environmental document are listed below and referenced in the discussion which follows. o Traffic and Circulation o Noise o Air Quality o Aesthetics/Views o Land Use/Relevant Planning o Hydrology o Construction Impacts o Biological Resources o Cultural Resources o Light and Glare o Topography/Geology and Soils o Recreation and Open Space o Public Services and Utilities The assessment of an environmentally superior alternative neither attempts nor requires a systematic "weighting" or valuation of the relative importance of these impact categories. However, the project is a proposed transportation facility of local and areawide significance for traffic and circulation. The objectives of the project (Section 2.4) address local and regional circulation and the need to protect existing residential areas from traffic and transportation -related impacts. Therefore, while each of the listed impacts is includedin the analysis, considerable emphasis is given to the impact of the No Build and Build Alternatives on traffic and circulation and closely related environmental categories of public concern, such as noise, air quality and views. These issues were most frequently mentioned through the public involvement program and are considered the principal areas of controversy and issues to 9843JPR-11608-X 5-17 as noise, air quality and views. These issues were most frequently mentioned through the public involvement program and are considered the principal areas of controversy and issues to be resolved. 5.3.1 No Build (Alternative 1) The No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative for the following environmental topics: hydrology, topography, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. This alternative is environmentally superior in these areas because it would involve neither a realignment nor an extension of Ford Road to the SJHTC. As it proposes no construction, it would result in no landforra alteration and, therefore, no impacts to related environmental resources. However, the No Build Alternative would result in greater impacts than the Build Alternatives with regard to traffic and circulation (existing Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road north of Ford Road, Bison Road, and Newport Coast Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road), noise, air quality, land use/relevant planning, and recreation and open space. The No Build Alternative removes access to the Coyote Canyon landfill site. Without the Ford Road extension to the SJHTC these environmental topic areas would be - impacted in the long term as a result of deteriorating levels of service on the existing circulation system. 5.3.2 Build Alternatives This category includes No Project (no realignment) Alternative 2, defined as an extension of Ford Road to the SJHTC consistent with the MPAH, without a realignment; and the Alignment A and B alternatives (with direct or indirect connectors, and Coyote Canyon Road access alternatives). For the topical areas for which the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d) require that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative among the build alternatives. In the case of Ford Road, the No Project Alternative is actually a build alternative, No Project The No Project (no realignment) Alternative is the environmentally superior build alternative for hydrology, topography, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, public services and utilities. This alternative is also slightly superior to the other Build Alternatives, A and B with respect to land use/relevant planning and recreation and open space in that it does not divide.a large land use planning area, or create irregular or undersized parcels, and requires less currently undeveloped land area for roadway purposes. However, the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts than the other build alternatives in terms of traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, aesthetics, and light and glare. With regard to traffic and circulation, the No Project Alternative results in significantly 9UMM-1108-x 5-19 higher traffic volumes on existing Ford Road west of San Miguel Drive, and slightly higher volumes on San Miguel Drive itself. No Project CNEL noise levels would exceed those of the other build alternatives A and B at eight of the ten residential receptor locations evaluated. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would result in the highest average 1-hour and 8-hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations for monitored receptors. The higher traffic volumes along existing Ford Road would also represent a greater aesthetic and light and glare impact to adjacent existing uses. Alternative A This includes build alternatives A(D), A(I), A(Ii), and A(12). Among the build alternatives, Alternative A is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative in terms of aesthetics, noise, and air quality. Differences between Alternatives A and B for these same categories will be masked or virtually eliminated by future intervening development (i.e. between existing and realigned Ford Road) and are so slight even without such future development that neither can be considered clearly superior to the other. Among the build alternatives, Alternative A has greater impacts on biological resources, topography, geology and soils, hydrology, recreation and open space. Alternative B This includes build Alternatives B(D), B(I), B(II), and B(12). Among the build alternatives, Alternative B is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative in terms of traffic and circulation, aesthetics, noise and air quality. Differences between Alternatives A and B for these same categories are so slight that neither can be considered clearly superior to the other. Among the build alternatives, Alternative B is clearly superior to Alternative A with regard to biological resources and topography, geology and soils. Alternative B results in slightly greater impacts to cultural resources than Alternative A in terms of the number of archaeological sites directly impacted by roadway construction. 5.3.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Project Alternative (no realignment) is superior to both of the other Build Alternatives A and B for most physical environmental and resource -related impact categories directly affected by landform alteration and roadway construction activities. The No Project Alternative responds to some of the project objectives, such as 1) providing a detour for Newport Coast Drive traffic during SJHTC construction; 2) providing a direct route between MacArthur Boulevard and SJHTC; and 3) allowing continued access to the Coyote Canyon landfill site (with implementation of C-3 or C-5 alternatives). 9843-IPA 11608-X 5-19 However, it only partially responds to the project objective of implementing the Circulation Elements of the General Plans for the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, as well as the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAR). It fails to respond altogether to the project objective of buffering existing residential areas adjacent to existing Ford Road and San Miguel Drive from regional through -traffic and transportation -related impacts. Although considerable emphasis is to be give including noise, air quality and aesthetics in alternative, and both Alternatives A and B a Project Alternative (no realignment) should alternative regarding the physical environment, superior alternative relative to issues associated noise, air quality and aesthetics. 9643.JM-116MX n to transportation and traffic -related impacts the selection of an environmentally superior re considered superior in this regard, the No be considered the environmentally superior whereas Alternative B is the environmentally with the project objectives such as circulation, I 0 I 1 I 6.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ' HYDROLOGY 1. Prior to final plan approval, design plans shall show that the design of outlets to Bonita ' Creek and tributaries are based on the confirmed Bonita Canyon Creek water surface elevation. Final design shall be based on a thorough hydraulic analysis, taking into consideration the overflow design flood for the upstream San Joaquin Reservoir as well as the downstream design water surface of Bonita Creek. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(M), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 2. Prior to final plan approval, design plans shall show rock protection (or mitigation of equal effectiveness) to minimize erosion and downstream sedimentation in areas requiring slope protection at inlets and outlets of structures. This would include ' drainage locations 1 through 8 of Figure 3.1-1. Such protection measures shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist to minimize disturbances to adjacent wetlands resources. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2)9 ' C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 3. Prior to final plan approval during design and plan check review, project plans (drainage improvements) will be coordinated with the resource agencies, and with the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, Caltrans and the County of Orange to avoid any ' adverse impacts on those agencies' facilities. The design of drainage facilities will be consistent with hydraulic studies prepared by the OCEMA. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 4. Prior to final design, the TCA shall prepare a detailed Runoff Management Plan (RMP). The plan shall address the provision and location of facilities to route and detain project ' runoff for the purpose of maintaining peak flows and flow velocities downstream of the project at or below existing rates and preventing project pollutants from reaching improved and unimproved downstream drainages. County of Orange Best Management ' Practices (BMPs) will be included in the runoff facilities for the project as determined appropriate by the Design Engineer. The RMP will contain provisions for changes to the plan (e.g. alternative mechanisms plant materials) if necessary during project design ' and/or construction phases to achieve the stated goals and performance standards at an equal or greater level. The plan shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) Environmental Planning Division for review and comment. The Runoff Management Plan shall, at a minimum, accomplish the following: 23—/0 9843-JPR-11608-X 6-1 I a. Assess the existing water quality in a representative sample of downstream improved and unimproved drainages for the purposes of establishing a baseline standards. Water quality standards established by the OCEMA and the RWQCB shall be used as ' reference standards. b. Locate and construct detention/settlement basins within the vicinity of drainages ' identified in the DEIR as being potentially Impacted by project pollutants. The detention/settlement basins shall be of the appropriate size to retain runoff and intercept the majority of pollutants (first flush storms) from the peak flow up to ' and including the 25-year storm. Provisions for metering runoff shall be Included in the design of the detention/settlement basins so as not to overlead treatment capacity. Detention basins shall be equipped with oil and grease traps or some other ' acceptable method to aid in the breakdown and permanent removal of pollutants. The Runoff Management Platt will specify cleaning of grease traps and disposal of waste material. ' C. Locate and construct grass covering drainage channels from the project to the detention/settlement basins identified per the above. , d. Route project runoff through the above drainage channels to the detention/settlement basins. ' 23-3 e. Develop and landscape palette suitable for use in project drainages and detention/settlement basins which promotes the use of plant material able to breakdown project pollutants. Channel design to accommodate flow reduction affect of chosen plant materials. ' f. Establish a regular testing methodology and schedule to monitor the level of heavy metals and other pollutants within the drainage/settlement basins and representative downstream improved and unimproved drainages. g. Report findings of testing to the TCA Board on a regular basis through the ' Mitigation Monitoring Program process. h. Develop measures to reduce pollutant levels which exceed the established acceptable , threshold levels as provided by the RWQCB. Submit measures to the RWQCB and OCEMA for review prior to RMP approval and construction. These measures will assure that impacts related to the project do not cause downstream exceedance of ' RWQCB and County of Orange standards. The plan will specify a process for application of these mitigation measures. ' 9b43•JPR•11606-X 6.2 II 1 i. Establish maintenance procedures to ensure adequate function and prevention of 23_3 accidental breakdown of detention basins, grease traps, drainage channels and other 2e; 3 runoff facilities. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, if deemed necessary by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit shall be obtained from the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. A component of the NPDES permit is a Best Management Plan (herein referred to as a Runoff Management Plan and Sediment Control Plan), which includes development of short-term and long-term structural and non-structural strategies for stormwater management: The plan should also include long-term funding mechanisms and commitment to support required maintenance of the structural implementation components of the plan. The plan shall be coordinated with the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach as a component of the NPDES Permit. Water extracted from dewatering wells shall meet current Environmental Protection Agency discharge requirements. If necessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES VEGETATION Non-native Grassland Non-native grasslands, though not considered sensitive by resource agencies, are important to a variety of wildlife species, most notably as foraging habitat for raptors. In addition, the grasslands of the project study area act as a buffer for the sensitive plant communities against human intrusion. The following measures will minimize adverse impacts on this, and other, plant communities of the project study area: 6. Ongoing during construction, the project applicant shall ensure that earth -moving equipment is confined to the narrowest possible corridor and shall avoid unnecessary maneuvering in areas outside the immediate project study area. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 7. Prior to issuance of grading, temporary power or construction permits detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the lead agency identifying locations for waste dirt or rubble deposition which avoid native vegetation outside defined construction limits. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-iPR-11608-X 6-3 It 8. Prior to commencement of grading and construction activities, preconstruction meetings with construction supervisors and equipment operators will be conducted as required by their contracts to ensure adherence to all recommended mitigation measures. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). The Governor of the State of California recently initiated a program that supports a multi - species approach to habitat conservation planning. This program, known as the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP), will determine and implement a scientifically - based system of conservation areas that will be managed for their ecological values in order to protect multiple species of interest in their natural habitats. Directed by the State Resources Agency, and implemented by the CDFG, this effort is currently identifying sub -regional planning areas and guidelines for coastal sage scrub habitat in Southern California. A Scientific Review Panel has identified broad boundaries of sub -regions and existing development patterns. Landowners, local government, and state and federal resource agencies are participating in defining the sub -regional planning areas, and the extent of development to take place within these areas during the planning process. On May 1, 1992 the San Joaquin and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Boards of Directors enrolled in the Natural Community Conservation Planning project. The SMTC Board of Directors commitment relative to Ford Road involves cooperating with the local agencies and owners in joint coastal sage scrub habitat surveys in three study areas in central and south Orange County. The surveys will be used in a collaborative planning process that will lead to preparation of guidelines and standards requited by Section 2800 et seo of the California Fish and Game Code. The planning period terminates on October 31, 1992 or upon approval of an NCCP, whichever is earlier. The Department of Fish and Game will define and pursue implementation of the NCCP/CSS program expeditiously including the formulation of process guidelines and subregions as early as possible. It is not known at this time if the Ford Road project study area will be included in an NCCP. If the study area is enrolled in a planning area, all actions affecting coastal sage scrub in this area will be mitigated pursuant to the guidelines and directives of the NCCP planning process. If the study area is not enrolled in an NCCP, impacts on coastal sage scrub will be mitigated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following mitigation measures will be implemented if the Ford Road study area is not enrolled in a NCCP. 9943-JM-116WX 64 ' 9. Prior to final field inspection and approval and within 30 •days of commencement of project construction, all coastal sage scrub lost as a result of project grading will be replaced such that there is not a net loss of this plant community within the project study area. Replacement will take place through revegetation. A qualified botanist or habitat restoration ecologist will be selected to supervise all coastal sage scrub revegetation. This individual will also coordinate with the USFWS to determine the ' replacement ratio and specific study area revegetation location. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). ' 10. Prior to final plan approval, a project landscape plan will be developed that describes all aspects of the revegetation. Specifically, this plan will include: ' o Species composition for areas to be planted (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o methods and procedures for planting and irrigating (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); ' o maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation methods (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, ' o all performance standards as agreed upon by the project botanist and pertinent resource agencies (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), ' C-3, C-5 and No Project). 11. Prior to final plan approval, the criteria for success of the coastal sage scrub t replacement will be reviewed with the CDFG and USFWS, and approved by the lead agency. In order to minimize the time between the removal of occupied sage scrub habitat as a result of construction activities and the growth stage at which the ' revegetated plant material becomes beneficial to the gnatcatcher, the revegetation effort must begin as soon as possible or within thirty days of commencement of project construction, whichever occurs first. The criteria for gnatcatcher habitat include the I' following: o Vegetation dominated by coastal sagebrush, with California buckwheat and white ' sage as sub -dominants (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); ' o Vegetation on gentle slopes (not to exceed 40 percent grade) (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, t 9943-n'R-116MX 6-5 I o vegetation areas large enough, or contiguous with presently occurring coastal sage scrub habitat to support breeding pairs of gnatcatchers. (Alignments A(D), A(n, A(11), A(I2), B(D), 13(1), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities and ongoing thereafter, measures will be taken to protect the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat within the study area from construction activities associated with the project and from further degradation after the project is completed. These measures include the following; 12. Prior to commencement of any grading operations and ongoing during grading operations, all areas of coastal sage scrub to be avoided shall be protected, where feasible, with temporary fencing. Orange plastic snow fencing is recommended because of its high visibility and ease of installation. After grading operations have been completed, permanent fencing, approved by resources agencies, will be installed, where feasible, in the areas in which coastal sage scrub borders the alignment. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within the fenced areas. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 13. Ongoing during grading and construction activities, the coastal sage scrub vegetation within the vicinity of construction shall be sprayed with water once every twenty days to reduce dust accumulated on the leaves. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(il), A(U), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 14. Prior to final field inspection and approval and within thirty days of project construction, preserved areas of coastal sage scrub shall be buffered by native plant species from human uses by incorporating appropriate transition plantings on manufactured slopes adjacent to coastal sage scrub. The transition planting areas will limit potential impacts on occupied California gnatcatcher habitat by screening the alignment from gnatcatchers, limiting public access, and capturing excess runoff from the roadway. Native plants suitable for this transition area, and the methods for planting, will be included in the project landscape plan. These transition plantings will be supervised by a qualified botanist subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Marshal and will require periodic selective thinning for fuel modification purposes. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(I1), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 15. Ongoing for two years following planting or until the plant species become established, plantings and revegetated areas shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. Monitoring will take place monthly for the first year and quarterly for the following period. 9843.1PR•11608•X 6.6 Records shall be kept on germination success, species composition, erosion, and plant mortality. Copies of these records will be filed with, and measures required to correct any problems shall be described as part of the reporting requirements of the mitigation monitoring for this project, which will be adopted in conjunction with project approval. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). R:xparian Communities 16. Prior to final field inspection and approval, impacts to wetland and riparian habitat in the project study area will be mitigated such that there will be no net loss of habitat. A minimum of a one-to-one replacement ratio shall be used in mitigating the loss of riparian or wetland habitat. Because of the proximity of the Ford Road extension study area to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor alignment, mitigation for the Ford Road project shall be coordinated with the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Wetlands Mitigation Plan (LSA 1990) for impacts on wetlands and riparian habitats to maximize efficiencies and efforts from both projects. In addition, impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation will be mitigated through consultation with CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The potential discharge of dredge or fill material into wetland and riparian areas will be mitigated through consultation with ACOE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and will require Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 certification (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Ii), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 17. During the process of obtaining the required permits for encroachment into habitat areas (1601/404), the TCA will prepare a Wetlands Mitigation Plan and will coordinate with the affected resource agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Guidelines for development of a mitigation plan and site selection will include the following: o The sites selected will be evaluated for their suitability for use as riparian habitat mitigation areas. The parameters evaluated will include, but not be limited to, soil condition, hydrology (current water availability), geology and drainage preparation, designation for particular land uses, and the archaeological and historical sensitivity of the site (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Ii), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, o Maintenance and monitoring goals will be established that are compatible with mitigation plans that have been or are being developed for other projects in the vicinity, such as the SJHTC (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-11608-X 6-7 23'Ilp 18. Prior to final plan approval, project plans shall show realignment of the C-5 Coyote Canyon Access Road Alignment which avoids the Pelican Bills Mitigation Area (Alignment A(D), A(1), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-5 and No Project). 19. Prior to completion of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan, TCA shall verify that the components and implementation of the wetlands mitigation plan will include the following: o A set of objectives for site selection and habitat replacement, and a set of parameters for the determination of the amount of replacement habitat, including the indirect effects of roadway noise. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-31 C-5 and No Project); o Maintenance and monitoring specifications including requirements for site maintenance, terms of maintenance, frequency of monitoring, financing mechanisms, performance standards and documentation of the implementation program. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Design and seasonal guidelines to minimize impacts during construction; fencing plans for protection of wetland habitats not impacted by construction. (Alignments A(D), A([), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Replacement site selection guidelines. Per actual replacement ratios and acreage, site locations and habitat values will be determined throughout coordination with CDFG, USFWS, COB, and County of Orange during preparation of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Implementation specifications, including numbers, size and spacing of vegetation; site preparation, plan propagation and planting techniques, irrigation techniques, and soil treatments. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(Ii), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Site maintenance requirements and terms, weed control measures, frequency of monitoring and monitoring reports, performance standards and remedial measures. (Alignments A(D), A(% A(II), A(12)2 B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); o Maintenance of water flow to existing and established water control devices. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, wetlands; description of A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II)t 9943-M-t1604X 6.6 1. r I n 1 I I I 1 E I o Documentation of the implementation program, including financing mechanisms, routine evaluation of the mitigation by wildlife agencies, and ultimate land ownership. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 20. Prior to final plan approval design plans shall show bridges designed and constructed to span delineated wetlands at the principal drainages crossed by the projection (i.e. drainage locations 1, 2 and 7). (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(H), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 21. The performance standards from Mitigation Measure 19 for the wetlands plantings shall be met as follows: o Two years after planting, the tree canopy will be 50% or greater. The standard for tree height will be seven to nine feel for sycamore, cottonwood, black willow, red willow, and golden willow, and six feet for arroyo willow. Mean height will reach or exceed this standard in two years. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, o Five years after planting, the tree canopy cover will be 90% or greater. The standard for tree height will be 13 to 15 feet for sycamore, cottonwood, red willow, arroyo willow and golden willow, and 18 feet for black willow. At least 9001b of the canopy trees will reach or exceed this height in five years. Canopy trees are defined as those that contribute to the measured canopy cover. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(H), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Wildlife Resources Mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts on wildlife species include the following: 22. Revegetation shall be accomplished on all graded and cut -and -fill areas where native vegetation was removed, where soil/bedrock conditions allow, and where future improvements are not planned. -These areas will be revegetated with the native vegetative plant community that they supported prior to disturbance and as approved by a qualified biologist or revegetation specialist. In order to avoid indirect impacts that can be caused by ornamental landscaping of graded areas, native plant species will be used in the revegetation program because they will be best adapted to existing soil and climate conditions. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C- 3, C-5 and No Project); and, 1 1 9943-JPR-1 MOM 6.9 I 23. Night lighting near the alignment shall conform with City of Irvine standards and be baffled or provided with internal silvering to direct the light away from undeveloped areas, so as to not disrupt nocturnal wildlife activity. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Ii), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 24. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, final mitigation plans with regard to the many -stemmed dudleya shall be determined in conjunction with a Memorandum of Understanding between the TCA, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation options for impacts on the many -stemmed dudleya Qudja multicauli with respect to proposed alternatives A(D), A(I) A(11) and A(12) include off -site acquisition of lands with same species, pay fee per habitat acre or plants lost and transplantation of species (seed collections and propagation). Because of the proximity of the Ford Road study area to the San Joaquin ' Transportation Corridor, mitigation measures for the Ford Road project shall be coordinated on with the TCA Resource Management Plan (LSA 1990) for impacts on many -stemmed dudleya is encouraged to maximize efficiencies and efforts from both III projects. (A(I), A(II), A(12) and A(D)). The salvage program for many -stemmed dudleya shall be a multi -task effort, consisting of the following tasks: -Corms shall be salvaged during the fall drought season and stored at a nursery until the mitigation site is prepared. (A(I), A(11), A(12) and A(D)); -Topsoil shall be salvaged to a depth of six inches from the surface and will be stockpiled for the shortest possible time prior to respreading to six inches depth. (A(!), A(11), A(12) and A(D)); -Large blocks of substrate with the corms and associated flora kept in place shall be salvaged and stockpiled for the shortest possible time prior to replacement on mitigation areas. (A(I), A(Il), A02) and AM)); o Restablishment will include: J -Salvaged corms will be placed in a nursery to provide a backup seed source, in ' the event of initial failure to re-establish species in the wild. (A(I), A(11) A(12) and A(D)); and, -Dormant corms will be transplanted to appropriate locales where the species is not now present or occurs in low numbers. (A(l), A(Ii), A(12) and A(D)); 11 11 9943JM-11609-X 6-10 1 -Transplantation and seeding sites will be created on the right-of-way. These will be in areas of rock outcroppings, where the embankment is stairstepped. This will provide flat areas for establishment populations. (A(l), A(11), A(12) and A(D)); -Salvaged topsoil and soilbiocks with plants will be placed on the crests of the stairsteps. Topsoil area will be seeded during the rainy season with seed salvaged from preexisting populations. (A(1), A(Il), A(12) and A(D)); and, -East facing slopes will be selected for relocation sites. (A([), A(Il), A(12) and A(D)). California Gnatcatcher 25. Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, surveys shall be conducted during winter and spring seasons to identify active nest and territory locations. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 26. As part of the resource management plan for the project, the project applicant shall make efforts to maintain connections between this gnatcatcher population and those occurring on the U.C. Irvine campus and in the San Joaquin Hills. This could be accomplished by: o Minimizing impact on areas adjacent to the Ford Road extension during construction by narrowing turnaround and parking areas for construction equipment. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1), A(U), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project), and o During the construction -phase of development, construction activities should not be conducted during breeding (April through June) at the easterly project limits near Bonita Reservoir. If construction during this period cannot be avoided, then only construction that results in noise levels less than 65 dBA at the gnatcatcher nesting sites during the dispersal periods (April through June) shall be allowed. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Least Bell's Vireo To minimize the potential for nest failure of least Bell's vireos nest sites as a result of implementation of the project alternatives, the following mitigation measures shall be followed: 9843-n'R-11609-X 6-11 27. Prior to commencement of grading and construction activities, the project applicant shall conduct focused surveys each spring to determine the presence of nesting least Bell's vireos in the Bonita Reservoir area. These surveys will be conducted by a qualified ornithologist and conducted according to current USFWS guidelines for least Bell's vireo surveys. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11)0 A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); 28. During the construction phase of development, construction activities shall not be conducted during the breeding season (April through June) at the easterly project limits near Bonita Reservoir, if active least Bell's vireo nests are present. If construction during this period cannot be avoided, then only construction that results in noise levels less than 60 Leq at the least Bell's vireo nest(s) during the breeding season (April through June) shall be allowed. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and, 29. Prior to final inspection and approval, transition plantings shall be placed on manufactured slopes between the completed roadway and adjacent willow woodland areas associated with Bonita Canyon Reservoir. Native plants, such as described above under coastal sage scrub mitigation, will be used for the transition planting areas. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). :, 1 Measures outlined above for mitigation of losses of coastal sage scrub habitat will compensate for and minimize impacts on the San Diego horned lizard. if coastal sage scrub protection and replacement efforts are successful, horned lizard population within the study area should increase in size. TOPOGRAPHY/GEOLOGY AND SOILS 30. Prior to approval of final engineering design plans and during the construction -phase of development, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to minimize seismic related hazards: A. Proposed fill soils shall be preconsolidated. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(n, B(11), B(12), C-3, C 5 and No Project). 9943•IM-11608X 6.12 123-12 r B. Fill slopes shall be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Unless construction in rock -like materials or competent soils demonstrates that adequate factors of safety against landsliding exist. The placing of fill material shall be monitored by the soils engineer. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). C. Fault zones exposed in cut slopes will be avoided where feasible. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). D. Existing landslide areas will require either stabilization or removal of landslide materials during project grading. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 31. Realigned Ford Road will be designed in accordance with Caltrans seismic design requirements in order to offset potentially adverse effects associated with ground shaking. Special attention will be given to the seismic design of the two bridge structures. Such designs will incorporate, where appropriate, the improved structural features listed below and state of the art seismic design standards. o Vertical restrainers to tie the superstructures and abutments together during extreme seismic motions. The need for restrainers will be determined during design; o Heavy keys to limit movement between the superstructures and abutments. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); and o Increased column spiral reinforcement in accordance with the most recent version of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(12), C- 3, C-5 and No Project). 32. Prior to construction, in those areas where fill foundations will be placed, soft consolidated soils shall be removed and/or recompacted. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 33. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, additional drilling and/or seismic profiling shall be performed to determine excavation characteristics in specific cut areas. These areas would include the alignment A or B bridges at the eastern flank of the large canyon east of MacArthur Boulevard, and also along the westerly direct connector (aligned with Newport Hills Drive West). (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-IPR-11608-X 6-13 34. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development, activities related to pre -splitting (if required) and placement of structural footings shall be controlled to limit the ground - borne vibration where structures and other cultural resources are within 500 feet from the construction site. Pre -splitting in such areas shall be monitored by the TCA; if it is determined that site preparation cannot be conducted in a manner to prevent damage to structures and other cultural resources, alternative methods of construction shall be utilized. Further contractors will comply with all local sound control and noise level requirements, regulations and ordinances which apply to all work performed on the Ford Road project, and will make every effort to control noise associated with the construction operation. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 35. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, supplemental geotechnical investigations identified in the project geotechnical report (Appendix Ii) will be performed to provide parameters needed for final design. Grading recommendations included in this report for site preparation and removals, fill placement, slopes, oversize materials and construction observation and testing will be adhered to in the construction phase. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C S and No Project). AESTHETIC RESOURCES 36. Prior to final field inspection and approval, adjacent landforms, where affected by Ford Road improvements, shall be recontoured to provide a smooth and gradual transition between modified landforms and existing grade and to avoid the appearance of manufactured grading. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12)0 C-3, C-5 and No Project). 37. Prior to approval of final design drawings, plans shall show that where alignments cross the westerly canyon, the designated Preservation Open Space spine and approach to Bonita Reservoir, selection and use of landscape materials will recognize the opportunities for enhancing slope landform variation. Natural vegetation which is drought tolerant with low maintenance requirements, shall be located in appropriate locations and densities to fit into the natural setting, and reduce yard trimmings. Use of sculptured landscaping (i.e., varied height and species diversity) will assist in disguising the manufactured slope appearance and will emphasize slope variation. Proper material selection and location of native plant materials, combined with sculptured grading, will emulate the adjacent natural setting. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-11606-X 6-14 38. Prior to final field inspection and approval, detailed landscape plans shall be prepared and implemented for cut and fill slope areas. Such plans will include type and density of ground cover, seed or hydromulch mix, plant sizes soil compatibility with seeds and plants selected, and temporary irrigation systems during plant establishment. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 39. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, trees shall be incorporated into the Ford Road vegetation and landscaping plan where feasible. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(M), B(D), B(l), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 40. During the construction -phase of development, vegetation removal will be limited to the area required for immediate construction operations. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(l), B(H), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 41. During the final design, landscaping shall be added to soften the visual effects of retaining walls. The project landscape architect shall determine the appropriate planting material and irrigation system for maintaining survival. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(M), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 42. The Ford Road engineering design plans shall include the lowering of the roadway profile between stations 51 + 50+ and 60 + 00± (between the easterly connector to the bridge). In -1bPIGftL addition, a landscaped earthen berm shall also be provided on the southerly side of Ford. These measures shall block the direct line of sight from a point 10 feet above the most 4 northerly edge of the realigned Ford Road pavement to the first floor level of the homes located on the northerly side of Hillview Drive. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(H), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(H), B(12). LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING 43. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, the project applicant shall assure adequate compensation for any property acquired, removed and relocated as a result of realignment and extension of Ford Road. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 44. On an ongoing basis, the City of Irvine will review future development applications for land uses adjacent to Ford Road realignment and the extension alternatives. Mitigation measures in the form of standard conditions of approval will be applied to such developments to assure that the use -related impacts of noise, air quality, views, light and glare and aesthetics are reduced to insignificant levels. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-TPA 11608-X &15 '1 LIGHT AND GLARE 1 45. Prior to issuance of construction permits, final design plans shall show that project 29 lighting is in conformance with City of Irvine lighting and spacing standards. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5, and No Project). _ RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 46. Prior to approval of final design engineering, project plans shall show a bike lane ' connection between existing on -street bike lanes on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard and the south side of Ford Road where the cul-de-sac is proposed to replace the existing MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road intersection. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(rl), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), 0-3, C-5 and No Project). 47. Prior to final held inspection and approval, on -street bike lanes shall be striped along all segments of the project alignment, connector roads and the bike lane connector to the satisfaction of the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), ' A(12), B(D), B(l), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 48. Prior to final field inspection and approval the Transportation Corridor Agencies and OCTA shall coordinate with both the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach in the specific siting and design of a future park and ride facility in the vicinity of the Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Specific siting and design shall minimize impacts to existing residences and sensitive resources, such as Bonita 1 Reservoir. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11)0 A(12), B(D), B(% B(11)0 B(12)2 C-3, C-5 and No Project). 49. Though not warranted by the traffic study results, the measures listed below provide additional assurances that excessive traffic volumes will not occur on San Miguel Drive should a director connector alternative be selected (Alignments A(D), B(D). o Should a direct connector alternative for San Miguel Drive be implemented, TCA and the City of Newport Beach will monitor future traffic volumes on San Miguel Drive. In the event that San Miguel Drive volumes exceed the 12,000 ADT southerly of existing Ford as projected in the EIR for the direct connector alternative, the TCA , and City of Newport Beach will implement one or more of the following mitigation measures to reduce traffic volumes on San Miguel Drive., 9843dP&ItW$-X 646 I I I i I I r 0 I J I I I a, installation of traffic signals on San Miguel Drive,- b. installation of additional stop signs on San Miguel Drive; C. modification of signal timing; d. signing to encourage use of alternative routes; e, lowering of posted speed limits on San Miguel Drive; f. initiation of environmental studies for the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Corridor on Sand Canyon Avenue; and g. other operational alternatives. o After implementation of one or more of the operational measures as listed above, the TCA and the City of Newport Beach will monitor San Miguel Drive volumes to determine effectiveness. In the event that traffic volumes continue to exceed 12,000 ADT, the TCA and City of Newport Beach will consider additional mitigation measures as listed above to reach the desired traffic volume threshold. In order to mitigate the impact of additional traffic noise on San Miguel Drive for the direct connector option, should future volumes exceed 12,000 ADT, the TCA shall complete a noise study for the homes along San Miguel Drive to assess noise impacts. If noise standards are exceeded as a result of the Ford Road realignment project, noise mitigation shall be implemented. Such mitigation could include upgrades of the existing wall on San Miguel Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road and existing Ford Road by replacing wood sections with higher density material where the existing wall breaks the line of sight for single family home backgrounds adjacent to San Miguel Drive. 50. Following selection of a preferred Ford Road realignment and extension alternative and prior to final design plans, the TCA shall have prepared a traffic study of vehicular turning movements between realigned and existing Ford Road via the selected direct or indirect connector(s), including the San Miguel Drive intersection. The study will be coordinated with the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(II ), B(12). 51. Though no constraints to Newport Hills Shopping Center access are anticipated, prior to identification of a precise alignment for an indirect connector east of San Miguel Drive, TCA shall conduct a focused study to assure adequate through traffic movements along the indirect connector, the existing Ford Road segment and San Miguel Drive, as well as adequate access to the shopping center. Such study shall assure that use of the existing Hillside Drive access to the center is not encouraged (Alignments A(I), A(I2), B(I), B(12). 52. Final designs for either the C-3 or C-5 access road intersection with Ford Road shall I allow for adequate left turn stacking and future signalization for General Plan land (Alignments C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JP&1160&X 6-17 AIR QUALITY 53. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Construction Management and Phasing Plan shall be developed as a guide for the construction phase of development to be used during clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, and construction: a. Fugitive dust will be controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other rust preventive measures as defined in SCAQMD Rule 403. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), B(D), B(I), 13(I1), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); b. Soil binders shall be spread in the study area and in unpaved roads and parking areas. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), 13(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); c. Ground cover shall be re-established on construction sites through seeding and watering. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); d. Construction will be discontinued during second stage smog alerts. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1)2 A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); e. Seeding and watering will be performed until vegetation cover is grown. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); f. Areas will be wet down sufficiently to form a dust on the surface with repeated soaking, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), 13(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); g. Street sweeping will be performed in those areas where excessive dust would be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), 13(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). h. Trucks shall be washed -off as they leave the study area. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project); i. Equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(U), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project); 98434PR.11608-x 6.19 11 1 I Low -sulphur fuel shall be used for equipment. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 54. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, the TCA shall review the final design plans to assure that the project design allows for retrofitting of mass transit accommodations, such as bus turnout lanes and bus shelters. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). NOISE Construction Noise 55. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development construction activities shall comply with the Noise Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine so that the hours of construction are considered acceptable in both jurisdictions. Weekdays 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Saturdays 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No construction is allowed on these days (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 56. Ongoing during project construction, each internal combustion engine used for any purpose on the project or related to the project will be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine will be operated on the project without a muffler. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(R), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 57. Ongoing during project construction, noise level requirements will apply to all equipment on the project or related to the project including, but not limited to, trucks, transit mixers or transient equipment. The use of loud sound signals will be avoided in favor of warning lights, except those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 58. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, designated haul routes for construction equipment and heavy construction related vehicles shall be located away from existing residential and other sensitive land uses. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-1160&X 6-19 Long -Term Noise 59. Sound attenuation shall be implemented as planned in the form of sound walls along the SJHTC in the vicinity of Bonita Reservoir as necessary to reduce future cumulative noise levels to a maximum exterior level of 65 CNEL and interior level of 45 CNEL for affected existing residences in accordance with standards established by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. A(1), A(D), B(i), B(D), B(II), B(12) and No Project). 60. After the SJHTC is completed and a noise barrier is in place, noise measurements shall be taken at the existing residences adjacent to existing Ford Road to determine if the Corridor noise barrier is succeeding in reducing cumulative noise levels to less than 65 CNEL. If the cumulative noise levels exceed 65 CNEL with the barrier in place, the noise mitigation plan shall be subject to upgrades or alternative improvements shall be implemented (double pained windows or insulation) until measurements show that noise levels comply with the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine noise standards. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(i), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). CGli��i! PALEONTOLOGICAL Excavations to implement any of the project alternatives is minimized with proposed vertical and horizontal alignments. Nevertheless, paleontological construction monitoring along the selected alignments should be conducted between 4 to 6 hours per day. Deposits and formations with moderate to high sensitivity should be monitored 4 hours per day. Deposits and formations with high sensitivity should be monitored 6 hours per day. Monitoring procedures are as follows: 61. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development, in accordance with Orange County policy, the paleontologic field inspectors should be at liberty to halt or redirect grading activities in the event that large specimens or concentrations are unearthed that require special handling/salvaging and to call in assistance for appraisal and for removal of specimens. (Alignments A(D), A(% A(I1)0 A(12)0 B(D), B(n, B(Il), B(12), C-3, C- 5 and No Project). 62. During the construction -phase of development, all specimens collected shall be catalogued and item numbered and plotted on a copy of the grading plans map; shall be prepared (cleaned; protected, etc.) to the point of identification; and should be donated to the Natural History Foundation of Orange County for further disposition (placed in regional research collections; use in scientific research). (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(n, B(Ii), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9343-IPR-11608 X 6-20 63. Prior final field inspection and approval, a report of findings shall be prepared and one copy will accompany the collection accessed into the Natural History Foundation of Orange County if specimens are collected. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 64. Prior to issuance of grading permits, all sites that could be impacted by the project shall be tested to determine subsurface boundaries and internal distribution of cultural material. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 65. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a testing program shall be developed by TCA to determine the potential of the cultural resources to provide information important in prehistory and to aid in planning a data recovery (mitigation) program. (Alignments A(D), A([), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 66. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the test program shall be planned and implemented by an Orange County certified archaeologist for all cultural resources directly affected by the project. The test program should consist of the following: a. Mapping all surface features and artifacts with surveyor's instruments. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). b. Measurement and photography of all bedrock mortars and cupules, if present on site. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). c. Collection of all artifacts visible on the surface. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). d. Conducting a subsurface test using a combination of postholes and excavation units to determine the depth, horizontal extent and contents of subsurface cultural material. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). e. A report presenting the results of the test program and containing recommended mitigation measures. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-11608-X 6-21 11 f. Specific recommendations as to the disposition of all artifacts recovered during th test program and grading, including measures assuring proper curation of artifacts at an appropriate museum or facility (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 67. Prior to and during grading and construction all sites which are to be avoided and preserved should be flagged off and should not be used for equipment parking/access/tumaround or for material stockpiling. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11)9 B(I2), C 3, C-5 and No Project). 68. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the mitigation measures recommended as a result of the test program (see 3.e above) must be completed. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11)2 A(12), B(D), B(n) B(11), 13(12), C-31 C-5 and No Project). 41-1-+ 60. Monitoring for prehistoric resources along the selected alignment of new Ford Road and its connector(s) shall be conducted during project construction. An archaeologist should41—ile be on site at all times during grading until such times as bedrock is reached (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project), HISTORIC RESOURCES 70. Prior to the physical alteration of the Lange Financial Plaza/Buffalo Ranch building complex, the following historical preservation actions shall be completed: o The Lead Agency shall provide for the preferred on -site preservation of the most architecturally significant features of the existing buildings (i.e. the silo) along with a plan for the long term funding thereof. This does not preclude consideration of off -site alternatives if determined to be more desirable with concurrence by the City of Irvine. As part of this funding/preservation plan the determination shall be made of whether the building(s) should be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. o Upon conclusion of the funding/preservation plan, the Lead Agency and the City of Irvine shall provide for the nomination of the Lange Financial Plaza/Buffalo Ranch site on the National Register of Historic Places for consideration. 96494P%t160e-x 6-22 11 I !I iI 11 I o Recordation of the entire Lange Financial Plaza/Buffalo Ranch building complex should be conducted by the Lead Agency in accordance with the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) specifications and guidelines which includes, but is not 32--T limited to, photographs, written documentation, and reproduction of plans and A-15 drawings depicting the evolution of the site over time and existing conditions, in order to be included in the U.S. Library of Congress (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(II), A(D), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2). 71. A Coordination/Phasing Plan shall be prepared by the Lead Agency indicating the strategy for coordinating the MacArthur Boulevard Widening and the Ford Road 41 .70 realignment concurrent with preservation plans developed for the Buffalo Ranch (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(D), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(I2). PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 72. Prior to final inspection, all project -related improvements shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of the final plan. The provision of all improvements shall be consistent with applicable State and City codes and standards. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(Il), B(M), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Police 73. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall demonstrate on all appropriate plans that road design emergency access, and project lighting and landscaping complies with appropriate ordinances of the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach related to safety. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 74. Prior to issuance of street vacation permits for the westerly cul-de-sac of existing Ford ' Road and prior to issuance of grading and construction permits for the project, the Construction Management and Phasing Plan for the project and all project plans shall show that two-way continued pedestdan/bicycle and emergency access is provided along existing Ford Road to MacArthur Boulevard. In addition, the Construction Management and Phasing Plan shall show barriers between all modes of traffic on existing Ford Road and construction phase activities at all times. (Alignments A(D), A(n, A(11), A(12), B(D), B(l), B(Il), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). I I 9943-JPR-11608-X 6-23 11 lFIM 75. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall ensure that all proposed facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable requirements of affected City and County Fire Departments. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(ii), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 76. Prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall implement necessary provision for water availability at the study area to the satisfaction of the Fire Departments at the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and the County of Orange. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2)0 B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Water 77. Ongoing during project construction, all existing underground facilities, with the exception of the 18" line impacts by the proposed Coyote Canyon access road, shall be protected in place. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(I1)0 A(I2), B(D), B(n, B(11), B(I2), C- 3, C-5 and No Project). 78. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the 18" IRWD main located in the eastern portion of the study area shall be lowered by approximately six feet to eight feet to the satisfaction of the IRWD. (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 79. Project improvement plans in the vicinity of any of MWD's facilities and fights -of -way 24^� shall be submitted to MWD for review and approval. Such plans shall demonstrate compliance with Metropolitan's guidelines (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 80, Prior to beginning Ford Road construction activities, the TCA shall work with the Irvine 2�,4 Ranch Water District (1RWD) regarding the feasibility of using reclaimed water during grading to control dust emissions (Alignments A(D), A(1), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(1), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Gas No mitigation measures are required. 9943dPR-11606 X 6-24 I !� t' !� Electricity 81. Prior to commencement of construction and/or grading, power poles which conflict with the project alignment shall be field verified and relocated to the satisfaction of SCE. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Telephone 82. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, the conduits for the major (24") telephone duct bank shall be field located and protected in place and ongoing during construction activities. If an embankment greater than 12 feet deep is to built over the telephone conduit, a reinforced concrete encasement approved by Pac Bell shall be constructed prior to issuance of construction permits. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 83. Telephone poles and associated overhead lines north of the Pac Bell building which are impacted by the roadway alignment (A or B) shall be field verified prior to issuance of^�O grading or construction permits, and relocated to the satisfaction of Pac Bell (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 84. Prior to final engineering of Coyote Canyon access road the telephone pole location and vertical clearance of overhead cable in the area of Coyote Canyon access road shall be surveyed and the proposed road realigned as necessary. (C-3 and C-5). CONSTRUCTION Il14PACTS Specific mitigation measures have been identified in the Noise, Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Hydrology Sections of this EIR. The following additional measures are included with which have particularly applicability to construction activities associated with the project: Construction Staging 85. Prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, construction staging areas will be identified in Construction Management and Phasing Plan, and located to avoid impacts to residences and other sensitive noise and air receptors. Such locations shall be reviewed by TCA/CDMG to assure avoidance of significant wildlife habitat, sensitive species and cultural resource sites. (Alignments A(D), A(l), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-11608-X 6-25 86. Ongoing during the construction -phase of development, trucks used for hauling borrow material to the study area will be covered to minimize loss of material. Flagmen will assist trucks moving into traffic, and peak hour truck travel will be minimized. Truck traffic will also be addressed in the Construction Management and Phasing Plan for the Ford Road project. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(12), C- 3, C-5 and No Project). Items discussed here have been incorporated in mitigation measure fl53. Likewise, noise mitigation measures have been consolidated as Mitigation Measures 55 through 58. 87. Prior to approval of final design engineering, plans shall show temporary mulching, seeding, landscaping, permanent erosion control or other suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during and after construction or other land disturbance. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(I1), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 88. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits , grading plans shall show that all project related grading will be performed in accordance with standards and criteria specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Orange County Grading Ordinance. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(11), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 89. Prior to approval of final design, an erosion and siltation control plan will be prepared and submitted for review by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(I1), 13(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 90. Prior to commencement of grading activities, approved erosion and sediment control devices will be installed for all grading and filling. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 91. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit the precise grading plan shall show that cut and fill slopes will not be steeper than 2:1, unless a thorough geological and engineering analysis indicates that steeper slopes are safe and erosion control measures are specified. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(Il), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(12), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9343-JPR.11606-X 6.26 92. Prior to issuance of grading permits, all final design plans shall show that earthen or paved interceptors and diversions will be installed at the top of cut or fill slopes where there is a potential for surface runoff onto constructed slopes. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 93. Prior to issuance of grading permits, all final project plans shall show that permanent benches and/or terrace drains will be installed in accordance with TCA/CDMG standards and noted on final plans. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 94. Prior to issuance of grading permits, all final project plans shall show that fills placed against watercourses will have suitable protection against erosion during storm flows, such as riprap, protective walls and culverts. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(11), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 95. During the construction phase of development, excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored in or alongside watercourses where the materials can be washed away by high water or storm runoff. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(12), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Fire Hazards 96. During the construction -phase of development, spark arresters will be required on all construction equipment. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(II), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 97. Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, parking and idling areas for construction equipment shall be graded or otherwise treated to remove brush and grass. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). Detours and Traffic Management 98. Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, advance notice of temporary traffic disruptions will be provided to affected areas, businesses and the public. Construction Management Phasing Plan for handling traffic during construction shall be prepared during final design of the project with input and approval of the County of Orange, and cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. These plans will include phasing of the construction activity to minimize traffic conflicts, detours and delays, and assure continued local access and through movements during construction. (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(I1), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(Il), B(I2), C-3, C-5 and No Project). 9843-JPR-11608-X 6-27 I. 99. Project plans shall assure continued vehicular access to Tentative Parcels Map 91-TP-270 -41 ' during construction of the Ford Road realignment and extension (Alignments A(D), A(I), A(71), A(I2), B(D), B(I), B(II), B(I2), C-3, C-S, and No Project). I 11 11 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 9643-TPA-11606-X 6-28 1 7.0 INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of any one of the build alternatives including the No Project Alternative will result in displacement of a nesting pair of gnatcatchers. This is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. If building features of the Lange Financial Plaza/Urbanus Square (former Buffalo Ranch) are moved and/or demolished, adverse impacts are anticipated. There are no other significant adverse impacts associated with project implementation. 9843-JPR-11608-X 7-1 & 0 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS A public scoping meeting for the Ford Road Extension and Realignment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was held December 13, 1990 at the Village Way Phase 1 Club House, 1854 Port Westbourne Place, Newport Beach. The meeting was held to solicit public comment on the scope and content of the EIR, to discuss project alternatives, and generally inform the public as to the characteristics of the project. The meeting was attended by approximately 100 persons. Significant public input as to the need for the project, alternatives to the project and areawide circulation plans was presented. A sample of public comment and issues raised is provide below: o Need for a westerly cul-de-sac of existing Ford Road. o Define future land uses planned in the area, o Use Bison Road instead of Ford Road for an interchange with SJHTC; justify need for a Ford Road interchange. o Identify project impact on Buffalo Ranch complex (total or partial displacement). o Define number and location of connectors needed between existing and a realigned Ford Road. o Discuss extension of Culver Drive in traffic study; consider areawide circulation in EIR. o Look at safety hazard of school children crossing San Miguel Drive; consider reduced access to Corona Del Mar High School with cul-de-sac of existing Ford Road. o Define noise mitigation requirements of Alternative A and B. o Potential for traffic queues and backups with additional turning movements. o Look at use of Pelican Hills Road (Newport Coast Drive) as SJHTC frontage road, instead of Ford Road interchange. o Use San Joaquin Hills Road instead of Ford Road interchange. o Consider other Ford Road alignments through study area. A Notice of Preparation and accompanying Environmental Analysis/Initial Study was widely distributed to agencies, organizations and interested persons on June 3, 1991. Responses to the Notice of Preparation are compiled in Appendix A of this EIR. M-nk-116%x 6.1 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ford Road Extension and Realignment was prepared by THE KEITH COMPANIES, under the direction of the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) of Orange County. Key personnel from firms who contributed to preparation of this document and those whose material has been incorporated herein are listed below: Thomas Holm - EIR Project Director, Principal In Charge. Lori Duca - Senior Environmental Planner David Lackie - Environmental Planner Chris Love - CAD Systems Manager Alison Rainone - Graphics Diane Jakubowski - Project Engineer, Hydrology Luana De Lacy - Word Processing Roger Mason - Director, Archaeology C. William McManis - Field Crew Chief, Archaeology Roger Hatheway - Consulting Historian John Cooper - Consulting Paleontologist Terrence Austin - Transportation/Principal In Charge Denise Gemma - Transportation/Project Manager 9943-IPR-11608-X 9-1 Frederic Greve - Acoustics -Air Resources/Principal In Charge Martin Beal - Acoustics/Project Engineer Richard Friesen, Ph.D. - Biologist/Manager, Biological Services Keith Babcock - Staff Biologist/Project Manager Michael Fuller - Staff Herpetologist Vince Coleman - Staff Botanist Charles Hux - Project Engineer TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AG NC Gene Foster - SJHTC Corridor Manager Steve Letterly - Manager of Environmental Impact Macie Cleary -Milan - Senior Environmental Analyst Shant Kashyap - CDMG SJWC Project Manager 9$43-JM-11W8-X 9.2 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY Bob Peterson - Manager of Transportation Planning Harold Bahadori - Senior Civil Engineer CITY OF IRVINE Charlene Gallina - Siri - Senior Planner Jim Northcult - Street Lighting Specialist CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Don Webb - City Engineer Patty Temple - Advance Planning Manager 9843-JPA 11608X 9-3 10.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Acre -Feet: The volume of water equal to that of water one -foot deep over one acre frequently used as a measure of annual water use and storage capacity (equal to 43,560 cubic feet, approximately 325,851 gallons). ADT (Average Dally Trips): The number of vehicles passing a specific point on a roadway in one day (in both directions and on all lanes unless otherwise specified). Applicant: A person who proposes to carry out a project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or financial assistance from one or more public agency when that person applies for the governmental approval or assistance. Atmospheric Sulfate: Atmospheric sulfates are formed mostly by oxidation of S02, and primarily include ammonium sulfate, ammonium bisulfate and traces of sulfuric acid. In 1982, TSP collected a basin air monitoring stations contained from 7 to 13 percent sulfate. Capacity: The maximum number of vehicles that can be expected to travel over a given section of roadway or a specific lane during a given time period under prevailing roadway and prevailing traffic conditions. Carbon Monoxide: Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon - containing fuels, such as gasoline. More than 95 percent of the CO in the atmosphere of the Basin is emitted directly from motor vehicles, so that CO concentrations are generally higher in the vicinity and slightly downwind of areas with heavy traffic. cfs (cubic feet per second): A measure of water Volume over time, with the volume of water passing a point in one second. This is frequently used to discuss the water flow in a pipeline or stream. Larger diameter pipelines have higher cfs 9943.IM-116MX 10.1 11 capacity. One cfs equals approximately 724.5 acre- feetlyear. CNEL (Community Noise A measure of 24-hour noise levels Equivalent Level) calculated by penalizing the evening time period (7 P.M. to 10 P.M.) by 5 dB and night (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.) noises are penalized by 10 dB. Decision -making Body: Any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. Design Hour: The worst -case traffic situation expected to occur within anhour period during a typical day in the design year. Directional Distribution: The percent distribution of site -generated vehicle trips on major approach routes to a development. Hydrocarbon: A compound composed of the two elements: Hydrogen and Carbon. ICU: (Intersection Capacity Utilization). The ratio of vehicle volume (ADT) to roadway capacity. Lead: In this Basin, atmospheric lead is generated most entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline, and contributed to less than one percent (1 %) of the material collected as total suspended particulates in 1982. Level of Service (LOS): A measure of the effect on capacity of prevailing roadway and prevailing traffic conditions. Maximum Credible Earthquake: The largest earthquake that can occur on a given geotechnical framework without regard to time. Maximum Probable Earthquake: The largest earthquake that can occur on a given geotechnical framework in a given interval of time -- usually 200 years. 9843-JFR 11608-X lag Miocene: In geologic time, designating the third epoch of the ' Tertiary Period in the Cenozoic Era, characterized by the development of large mountain ranges. Approximately 26 million years before present MGD(N=on Gallons per Day) Volume of water on a daily basis frequently used to measure maximum day and storage capacity. MOD is equal to approximately 1,121 acre/feet/year. MPAH: A consensus plan developed jointing by the cities and County of Orange to ensure smooth, efficient traffic flow by the planned designation and construction of key/roadways carrying volumes of traffic greater than 8,000 trips per day. Nitrogen Dioxide: Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 is formed in the atmospheric primarily by rapid oxidation of nitric oxide (NO). Some NO2 also is emitted with NO from stationary and mobile combustion sources. These compounds NO and NO2, are referred to collectively as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The latest emissions inventory shows that 67 percent of the Basin's NOx is emitted from mobile sources and 33 percent from stationary sources. Ozone: Ozone, a colorless gas with sharp odor, is highly reactive secondary pollutant (it is not directly emitted). Ozone is the result of complex chemical reactions of primary pollutants, specifically reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of bright sunlight. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxides are emitted from mobile and stationary sources, with the greater contribution from mobile sources in the basin. Peak Hour: The hour during which the heaviest volume of traffic occurs on a roadway. Pleistocene: In geologic time, designating the first epoch of the Quaternary Period in the Cenozoic Era, characterized by the rise and recession of continental ice sheets and by the appearance of man. 9b43-JM.I IWB-X I" 'I Pliocene: The geologic time, designating the last epoch of the Tertiary Period in the Cenozoic Era, during which modern plants and animals developed. Approximately 7 million years before present. Prevailing Roadway The physical characteristics of a roadway Conditions: (e.g., vertical, and horizontal land alignments, number of lanes, existence of auxiliary lanes and intersections) that affect its capacity. Prevailing Traffic The factors that constantly affect the Conditions capacity of a roadway, including traffic volume; percent of traffic volume constituted by large vehicles; nature of conflicting vehicular movements; and pedestrian/bicycle movements. Primary pollutant: Air pollutant emitted directly from mobile or stationary sources. Remediation: The act or effect of remedying a problem./ Right -of -Way (ROW): The entire width of roadway committed to all roadway uses, including lanes, medians, parking, sidewalks, and future expansion. Secondary pollutants: Air pollutants formed by the chemical interaction of primary pollutants in the presence of sunlight. Signal Phase: That part of a traffic signal's time cycle allocated to a traffic movement (e.g., left turns) or a combination of movements receiving the right-of-way simultaneously. Sulphurs Dioxides (SO2): A colorless gas with a sharp, irritating odor. It is emitted directly into the atmosphere, primarily by stationary sources, such as power plants, petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and steel plants. Total Suspended Particulate: The name given to the solid matter suspended in the atmosphere. This complicated mixture of natural and man-made materials includes soils particulate, biological materials, sulfates, nitrates, organic (or carbon -containing) compounds and lead. A high 9843-1PR 11608-X 10-4 11 volume sampler is used to determine TSP concentration by passing a measured volume of air through a glass fiber filter. The filter then is weighed to determine the concentration of TSP, after which it is analyzed for lead, sulfates, and nitrate by a laboratory. Traffic Warrants: Criteria used to assess the necessity for a traffic signal. Trip Ends: The total number of trips entering plus the total number of trips leaving a development (similar to ADT). Trip Generation: The number of trips generated by a development; sometimes calculated by trip ends, as in the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. Ultimate: Refers to environmental conditions anticipated to occur ass a result of land use buiidout under the present governing General Plan. Visibility: Simply stated, visibility is how far atmospheric conditions permit a person to see at any given time. (Technically, visibility is defined as the farthest distance an observer can distinguish a large black object against the horizon). Reduced visibility causes aesthetic impairment of our surroundings. It also interferes with aircraft openings. Bedrock: Firm or coherent rock material that underlies the soil and surficial deposits such as alluvium. It is divided geologically into three principal types: igneous (e.g, granite), sedimentary (sandstone), and metamorphic (gaiess). Compaction: Reduction in pore space between individual grains as a result of natural pressure from overlying sediments or form earth movements, or artificial pressure from grading activities. Expansion Soil: A soil which undergoes a significant and reversible change in volume resulting from a change in moisture content. 9143-1M-11606 X I" Formation: A rock unit which can be recognized, named, and mapped, e.g. the Topanga Formation. Geotechnical: Pertaining to geologic -soils engineering studies, features, conditions or events. Holocene: The last 11,000 years of geologic time (post -last Ice Age). ppm: Parts per million. Precursors: Evidences of an event that provides a heralding of the event. Sedimentary: The class of rocks made up of transported and deposited rock and mineral particles (sediment) and of chemical substances derived from weathering. Seismic: Pertaining to or caused by an earthquake. Seismicity: is earth movement phenomena as related to earthquakes: also a measure of the area's susceptibility to earthquakes. Siltstone: A sedimentary rock of cemented particles, intermediate in size, between sand and clay (silt). Soil: Earth material above bedrock that forms as a result of weathering by organic or inorganic processes (divided into residential and transported soils). In pedology, the weathered material that would support rooted plants. In soil engineering, unconsolidated earth materials. Topographic Map: A graphic representation (by contours) of selected man- made and natural features of a part of the earth's surface plotted to a definite scale. Water Table: The upper surface of the zone of saturation for underground water (also phreatic surface). Weathering: The changes whereby materials, such as bedrock, decay and crumble to form sediment. 9843-)PR-1160&X 10-6 0 City Council 1 ting August 28, 1978 • August 23, 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 11 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 5 City Council Department of Community Development Revisions to Bluffs Groundwater Study The staff has reviewed the report by Montgomery Engineers and has discovered that some of the discrepancies in the report are a result of incomplete water application data and an error in calculation of volume. The corrected material will be submitted as an addendum to the report due to time constraints for printing. Montgomery indicated that the revision will not be available for distribution to council members by the normal time of mailout; therefore, this distribution will be accomplished at the earliest possible moment prior to or at the council study session. The revisions in the report will include an increase in the total volume of water applied to the greenbelts, and a reduction in the amount of the ground- water flow to about one-fourth of that which was originally reported. The percentages of offsite vs. onsite water will also be changed from 80/20 to, about 60/40. The increase in water applied is a result of water meters not originally reported to Montgomery Engineers. The reduction in subsurface flow is a result of an error in flow calculations; the revised calculations have been checked by City staff. The consultants were also requested to expand the discussion of surface drainage contributing to groundwater flow. Staff observations of some of these problems will be illustrated at the study session. These conditions result from a lack of drainage swale maintainance, from improper construction of privately installed drainage systems, and from over watering which leads to at least periodically excessive infiltration during the dry season. The staff's observations of surface drainage and seepage conditions along the bluff perimeter have indicated that some immediate action is imperative where failures have occurred during this past winter and where the sewer exists very close to the perimeter of the bluff; and that a long-range master planned program will be required to eliminate the less immediate hazards to the sewer. The staff therefore concludes that three programs of action should be initiated: 1) An evaluation of the sewer easement to determine the most immediately jeopardized sections, followed by installation of surface and subsurface drainage improvements in these areas. 6 2) Notifying the Homeowner's Association that a reduction in watering programs is imperative and that surface drainage conditions exist which must be corrected. 3) Working with the Homeowner's Association to correct the irrigation and drainage conditions along the bluff perimeter. This should include immediate cessation of irrigation along the most critical sections of easement. A more thorough explanation of staff's concern for surface irrigation and drainage conditions is included in the Appendix to this report. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director B JAMES R. EVANS•, Grading Engineer JRE:rw Attachment: Appendix V 0 APPENDIX • It should be emphasized that when a turf covered drainage swale is conducting surface runoff, whether generated by irrigation or rainfall, a fairly large amount of water will infiltrate into the ground. The installation of a drainage system to intercept surface water must be properly done, or increased, not decreased, percolation of water will result. Staff observations in the easement along the bluffs indicate that a drainage system has been installed in a manner which will increase the percolation along the sewer easements. This system was not approved by the City. The staff and the consultant agree that these drainage conditions contribute to the groundwater conditions. Staff and the consultant differ in our concern for these conditions existing along the bluff perimeter. It is the staff's opinion that correction of these problems is particularly important to bluff stability since an influx of water immediately adjacent to the bluff can cause failures which would not otherwise occur. The consultant, however, does not wish to assign degrees of importance to the different sources of groundwater inflow. 0 is • lawrDAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 17802 Sky Park Circle, Suite 201, Irvine, California 92714 / (714) 979-8733 August 25, 1978 WATER RESOURCES DIVISION EARL H. WIEDE FRED K DUREN. JM RONN D L DARTO Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: This letter is written in consideration of our recent discussions, relative to changes in the Bluffs Area Ground Water Study. We have completed our revisions and are trans- mitting them herewith as an Addendum to the final report. The Addendum has been prepared at the request of the City of Newport Beach to correct several computational errors in underflow calculations, and to include additional water applica- tions records. Supporting back-up calculations have previously been hand carried and discussed with the Public Works Department. Selected chapters of the report have also been expanded as a result of various questions from the City. In addition, several items in the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations have been clarified. Following review and approval by the Community Development Department and the Department of Public Works, 75 copies of the final Addendum have been prepared and are transmitted together with this letter. The Addendum pages have been punched to facilitate acceptance into the final report. It is our opinion that this Addendum is responsive to your questions and fulfills the additional requirements of the City. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. Very truly yours, X �v' Robert H. Ramsey Project Engineer ti ncy O i cc: P. Gatsoulis D� Celt, yD D. Lidke 6 Dept AUG25 1978&, 8 NEWPOR OF CALIF.EA�OyJ PLANNING ... R E S E A R C H ... E N V I R ON MEN TA L E N G I N E E R I N G r' ' al N O/ RECEIVED De elopment 2 Dept. :6- pUG2;i 19�8�' 3 I CITY OF EACH NEWPCAA CALIF - s rn ADDENDUM ' BLUFFS AREA GROUND WATER STUDY August, 1978 ' James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. I ' INTRODUCTION This Addendum to the Bluffs Area Ground Water Study has been prepared at the request of the City of Newport Beach to expand discussions subsequent to completion of the final report. The Addendum includes corrections to several computation errors made in subsurface flow calculations, the addition of new water application records, the expansion of selected report chapters, and clarification of questions which have arisen relative to the findings, conclusions and recommendations. The subsurface flow errors were discovered by Montgomery during the organization and final filing of I study data. The revised meter records and water supply summary reflect the addition of meter records which were unavailable during the study period. I I I 1 I I 1 I COMMENT The water application records corrected by the addition of new information, are shown on Table 3-3 (Revised) included with this Addendum. The table shows that Annual Applied Water within the Bluffs has ranged from about 327 to 497 acre- feet during the period from 1970 - 1977. Corresponding to the corrected Applied Water totals, the Summary of Applied Water Supply and Consumptive Use, Table 3-5 (Revised), has also been revised and is included herein. The new.totals' of Table 3-5 show that excess watering has ranged from about 17 to 132 acre-feet during the period from 1970 to 1977. As stated in the report, not all excess available water percolates to the ground water body. A certain portion of the excess water is lost to evaporation, surface runoff and replenishment of soil moisture deficiencies which have developed during periods of insufficient supply. Therefore, the amount of water which actually percolates to the ground water table is probably somewhat less than the figures shown for excess water. Revised figures for subsurface flow have been prepared. The basic .theories, assumptions and equations described in the report for estimating subsurface flow have not been changed, and were again used in determining the new estimates of underflow. Based on these calculations the inflow into the Bluffs, from outside the study area, is estimated to be about 38 acre-feet per year. The subsurface outflow, determined by the two methods described in the report, is estimated to be about 60 acre-feet per year. It should be noted that these I I estimates are based on limited subsurface exploration and a very short period of water table measurement. Additionally, the observation period occurred during a season with unusually high rainfall. As a result of these factors, the subsurface I flow values are considered to be order of magnitude estimates. The use of these values for determining proportional responsibility for the ground water contribution is not considered to be warranted. Revision of the underflow calculations does not alter or affect the basic philosophy of remedial measures and recommendations made in the final report. Ground water flow under the Bluffs area results from subsurface inflow, and also from percolation of precipitation and excess irrigation. The residential areas, main greenbelt and peripheral greenbelt areas, where saturated conditions occur frequently, are influenced by local irrigation practices as well as subsurface underflow. In order to alleviate these ground water and surface I water conditions, improved irrigation:practices and/or reduced irrigation, plus installation of surface and subsurface drainage systems will be required. In particular, the peripheral green- ' belt or sewer line access road requires attention. Existing drains do not appear to have been adequately designed or constructed and will require redesign and replacement. Irriga- tion of the peripheral greenbelt and bluff edge should be reduced or discontinued, at least until a master plan to connect roof drains, patio drains, swales and ditches into the existing underground drainage system has been designed and implemented. The construction of the recommended remedial drainage systems in combination with modification of irrigation practices should somewhat improve the overall stability problem along the bluff edge, because of a reduction of the overall quantity of ground water flowing through the Bluffs area. It appears, however, that locally the sewer line may require I realignment in any event, because of its proximity to the present cliff edge. I I I 1 1 -2- • 0 I I I I I I I II SPECIFIC REPORT MODIFICATIONS The following specific modifications should be made to the final report on Bluffs Area Ground Water Study: Chapter 3, Hydrology Page 3-5, paragraph 2, line 6 "112 acre-feet" should be "132 acre-feet" Page 3-7, paragraph 2, line 3 1114 to 112 acre-feet" should be 1117 to 132 acre-feet" Chapter 4, Hydrogeology Page 4-6, paragraph 4, line 7 Should read "Disposal = subsurface outflow or alternatively, total effluent spring flow plus evapotranspirational losses." Page 4-6, paragraph 4, lines 8 & 9 Should read "Subsurface inflow of approximately 38 acre-feet was estimated by preparing flow sections along the northeastern boundary (Eastbluff Drive) and solving the Darcy Equation, Q = PIA." Page 4-7, paragraph 1, lines 3, 4 & 5 Sentence should be deleted. Chapter 6, Geologic Hazards and Remedial Measures Page 6-1, paragraph 2, lines 1, 2 & 3 Should read "Because of local geologic conditions in the Bluffs area, the build up of surface and subsurface waters, and the resultant high ground water levels have created a number of present problems and also a number of potential geologic hazards." Page 6-2, paragraph 2, lines 1, 2 & 3 Should read "Bluffs area ground water originates as both subsurface inflow from tributary drainage to the east and percolation of precipitation and excess irrigation in the greenbelt and ground cover areas within the Bluffs." _-3- I! I I I Page 6-2, paragraph 2, lines 10, 11 &.12 (last two sentences) Should read "These seeps and wetted areas are a of periodic excessive irrigation, precipitation subsurface flow. Surface drainage facilities in main greenbelts appear to have been inadequately designed or are non-existant. result and the I In addition to seeps near the Terrace/bedrock contacts, seepage issues from the Tertiary materials along the base of the Bluffs. Plate III shows several areas which are reported to have experienced seepage problems at various times in the pastb). " I I I I I I I I Page 6-2, paragraph 3, lines 8 & 9 (last sentence) Should read "The recent meter records (1975-77) suggest this potential reduction on an area -wide basis could reduce the total amount of ground water flowing through the study area. Further, reduction of excess irrigation in those areas where water tends to accumulate could aid in reducing areas of seepage and saturation. Page 6-3, paragraph 1, lines 7 & 8 (last sentence) Should read "Further study and detailed subsurface exploration should be undertaken in the areas designated for remedial drainage systems prior to final design and construction. In addition, an expanded study of the tributary inflow area east of the Bluffs should be initiated to increase the understanding of the ground water regimen and confirm the inflow and subsurface flow calculations." Page 6-5, paragraph 3 Should read "The alternative plans for surface and subsurface drainage along the peripheral greenbelt and sewer line are ranked as intermediate in relative priority to other remedial measures. This rating is based on factors including an apparent intermediate level of effectiveness and immediacy of effect, inter- mediate amount of diruption to local residents, and intermediate construction costs. It should be noted, that while the priority rating system used in this report has ranked this problem area as third in relative priority, it is considered essential that immediate steps be taken to protect the stability of the sewer line and the bluff edge from further erosion. Immediate interim remedial measures which could be undertaken include curtailment of irrigation along the peripheral greenbelt and bluff edge, and repair, cleaning and proper maintenance of the existing drain facilities." _4- I ' ,0 0 I IChapter 7, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Page 7-1, paragraph 2, lines 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (last two sentences) Should read "However, it should be noted that several factors have limited the results of this study. These include a short period of observation for both water 1 level and water quality measurements, minimal sub- surface exploration limited by the funds budgeted for this study, the unusually high rainfall which occurred - during the study period and by the level of effort defined in the Scope of Work. Relative to the details on remedial measures, Montgomery's work was guided by the level of subsurface exploration and items 1 specified in the Scope of Work. Page 7-2, No. 6 Should read "Average annual water application together with annual precipitation has exceeded the estimated consumptive use requirement for vegetation during most years since 1970. The irrigated area within the Bluffs ' Homeowner's Association (approximately 94 acres) has been consistently over -irrigated. A portion of this applied water has been available for percolation to the ground water table. In addition, this over -irrigation has helped to create localize areas of periodic surface saturation within the residential and greenbelt areas." ' Page 7-2, No. 8 Should read "The ground water body in the Bluffs area is locally recharged by percolation of some precipitation ' and excess irrigation water. Annual excess water has ranged from about 17 to 132 acre-feet during the period from 1970 to 1977. A significant portion of the ground ' water flow through the Bluffs is derived (1977-78) from subsurface inflow (about 38 acre-feet) from tributary areas to the east. This inflow together with percolated I excess water made up an estimated annual subsurface outflow of about 60 acre-feet (1977-78)." Page 7-2, No. 10 Should read "Ground waters passing beneath the Bluffs are utlimately disposed of as surface seepage in residential and greenbelt areas, and as spring flow seepage and evapotranspiration in the perennially wetted areas along the bluffs. Localized saturation ' and surface water within the residential and greenbelt areas have resulted from periodic excessive irrigation. -5- J Page 7-2, No. 14 Should read "Specific problems associated with high ground water levels in the Bluffs area include erosion, ' piping within saturated sediments, seepage, ground water build-up behind foundations and retaining walls, damage to drainage systems along Backbay Drive, slope creep, sluffinq and localized slumping along cliffs, and a localized threat to the municipal sewer line along the cliff edge. These problems along the cliff edges have been locally worsened because of inadequately I designed and improperly maintained drainage systems. I RECOMMENDATIONS Page 7-3, No. 2 Should read "In order to observe and monitor ground water level and quality fluctuations, it is recommended that a data gathering program be implemented immediately. Water level measurements should be made each month at ' the piezometer network, and water samples should be collected semi-annually for partial mineral analysis. The estimates of inflow and underflow are based on several assumptions, limited subsurface exploration and a short observation period. Therefore, the cal- culated values are considered to be order of magnitude estimates only. In order to increase the reliability ' of these figures and expand the understanding of the ground water regimen, it is recommended that further detailed subsurface exploration and piezometer ' construction be conducted in the area east of the Bluffs." Page 7-3, No. 3 Should read "It is recommended that the Bluffs Home- owner's Association retain an Agricultural/Irrigation consultant specialist to analyze alternative patterns of irrigation and rates of application in order to minimize periodically excessive water application within the study area. Further, it is recommended that water application along the peripheral greenbelt and bluff edge be reduced significantly or terminated until such time as an adequate drainage system is installed. ' -6- man M (REVISED) TABLE 3-3 SUNIMARY OF APPLIED WATER (in acre feet) Area Designation 1970 1971' 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Bluff Association 301:5 364.8 342.3 279.7 334.3 232.9 286.9 244.3 Plaza Association 16.7(1) 16.7(1) 16.7(1) 15.9 17.7 16.4 20.6 20.4 East Bluff Elementary(2)I 8,8(3) 15.2 17.7 18.5 16.5 14.2 17.9 15.8 East Bluff Park 47.1 67.6r 60.5 62.2 35.0 29.8 31.9 23.0 Corona del Mar 39.9 30.2 29.7 36.3 35.4 28.7 46.8 42.1 H.S.(2) Our Lady Queen 3.5 2.4 4.8 1.4 0.9 4.6 8.1 4.9 of Angels Totals 417.5 496.9 471.7 414.0 439.8 326.6 412.2 350.5 Notes: (1) Applications estimated from average of years 1973-1975. (2) Estimated domestic consumption deducted'from'total delivered supplies. (3) Partial Records. 0 • I L (REVISED) TABLE 3-5 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND CONSUMPTIVE USEd) BLUFFS STUDY AREA (in acre feet) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Irrigation (applied water) 417.5 496.9 471.7 414.0 439.8 326.6 412.2 350.5 Precipitation 141.0 99.0 68.6 144.0 164.7 117.3 120.9 138.7 Consumptive Use 472.0 472.0 472.0 472.0 472.0 472.0 472.0 472.0 Excess water (underwatering) 86.5 123.9 68.3 86.0 132.5 (-28.1) 61.1 17.2 (d)Total irrigated area equals 147.4 acres. i• 1e a 0 0 • I 0I 0 0 City Council Meeting August 14, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Bluffs Groundwater Study 5(c)l i As directed by City Council, a meeting was held on July 27, 1978, between City staff and Karl Wiebe of Montgomery & Associates to discuss the Bluffs Groundwater Study, its limitations and implica- tions with respect to City policy and responsibility. The meeting was attended by the City Manager, Public Works Director, City Engineer, Community Development Director and the Grading Engineer. At the meeting considerable discussion was directed to the subject of groundwater flow originating off site (easterly of Eastbluff Drive). Subsequent to the meeting the data was reviewed by Montgomery & Associates and substantial discrepancies were found in some of the calculations used as a basis for the report. Recomputations are now being performed and revisions to the report are being prepared. As soon as these revisions have been completed, they will be pre- sented to the Council for further consideration. However, some of the conclusions in the report, related to ground- water and surface drainage within the Bluffs' area, are still valid. Problems will still be experienced in the Bluffs, regardless of the off -site groundwater flow, where relatively impervious bedrock formations are near the surface and where there are materials of low permeability within the terrace deposits. There are some additional problems in the Bluffs even in areas where functioning subdrains have been installed. This occurs in locations where poor surface drainage exists between the interceptor drains and the dwelling units, resulting in on -site infiltration of ground- water entering the bottom levels of split-level homes. Also, groundwater will still be carried to the bluff face with a possi- bility that additional failures will occur in the vicinity of•the sewer line. Considering all these aspects, the clusions regarding measures which revisions to the report as to the staff reached the following con - should be taken regardless of extent of groundwater flow: 1) The sewer owned by the City is threatened by probable bluff instability; this threat should be reduced by improvement of surface and subsurface drainage con- ditions as soon as practicable. 2) Problems will continue to be experienced in the Bluffs as long as existing surface and subsurface drainage conditions remain the same. Surface drainage improve- ments and additional local subdrains should be installed by the Bluffs' Homeowners' Associations. Respectfully submitted, DEPAR,?KnT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RVH/kk City Council 'Meeting July 24, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. _ 5(c)3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Bluffs Area Groundwater Study The final report on the Bluffs Area Groundwater Study is attached for the Council's review. The study was commissioned in December, 1977, by the City, and prepared by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers Inc. The cost of the study was primarily funded by the City ($21,800.00) with the remainder ($4,400.00) contributed by Holstein Industries, who propose to develop two tracts (fourteen units) within the study area. The purpose of the study was to identify the groundwater problems in the area, establish the direction and flow of the groundwater, and to recommend remedial measures where possible. Representatives of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. will be at the Study Session on July 24 to review the major find- ings and recommendations of the report with the Council, and answer any questions. The two tracts proposed for development are Tracts 8681 and 8682. The public hearing on those items will be on the Council's agenda for August 14, 1978. The Groundwater Report may be used as a reference in evaluating those applications, as well as providing information about the existing conditions of the Bluffs area. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By — AEnnviroeAntal RODD Coordinator BW/kk Attachment for City Council only: Bluffs Area Groundwater Report I 'April -4* 1978 V. Ho4aos 64rector Beverly Wo,od'O'Inviroamiental Coordinator- Bluffs Groundwater Study, xt V met with Bob Ramsay of James M. Montgomery engineers Inc. on Tuesday, March 98, 1976 to discuss the progress ',of the Bluffs Ground- water Study. - The Phase I Progress Report was received on February 27, 1978 which tonsisted -of a review ovexisting data, prellpina�ry mapping of the ,area ah.4 a proposed drilling program for Phass"11 of the study. 'The Phase I Aepert was reviewed at a meeting on March 3,whiO was attended' by City staff and representatives of Holstein jh4u$trieso, the Bluffs • Homeowners AssociAtiono,james M,o Montgomery Engineers and Robert Boint Willi -am Frost an-d Associates, A,britf presentation was,91van which summarized'the'survey''Of existing data on the Bluffs Area 'and 'the Phase 11p`rqgram Was aPproved-90ject, to meeting the conditions regarding hours of operating,equipmbnto,etc. requested by the Homeowner's Association.'' Since the meeting on March 8 1078 Montg6oary Engineefi have continu- ed mapping, researching, cole. of therecentrainfall* It has been difficult to,sic edu9 and dohumantint base data�,,Booaut can , K le a drilling contractor'to perform the work required in Phase It. The schedule to --b"fil that work has bean 'delayed by trio weeks, 'but it will begin 'no later than April 10. The 'wo rk proposed In Phase It f1so included some trenching along the Bljjff -face. With the recLont slides in'tIAS area, the bedrock has, b , son exposed sufficiently to do -the required mapping and observations. thertfora. there will be no additional trehc.hing, in Phase 111. I - In discussing the Holstofn application* Bob 'Remise* miety stated that the development of the two tracts would not altarthe groundwater regimen at ficantly or the findings at the and -of the study. This was letter co roediwith Karl WjeOe of Montgomery Engineers, who also added th?"219 in his opini6no the Groundwater Study would not add specific' or the decisi-ons. to be mAde on Tracts 11681 and 868t* information -tor 3 i because their study was %O'regionalt not site 9pecifc'. He felt that the information In the E,KR Addendum was more pertinent to the Planning Commission's decision. The next report on theresults of Phase 11,will be'turnad into tht City to mid -May. A final, report whould be',retdy, In, early June. d. Beverly *0006 Envirsaigintal Coordinator BOW/sh "I "A l DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: i 1 M Department of Community Development March 15, 1978 Jim Evans Beverly Wood Bluffs Groundwater Study I spoke to Karl Wiebe at James M. Montgomery, Inc. this morning, and he indicated that you were checking on the following items to facilitate the Phase II work of the Bluffs Groundwater Study: 1. A letter from the City setting forth in general terms the consultant's liability limits. 2. The approval of the right -of -entry permits. 3. The availability of meter boxes and the coordination of delivering those to the contractor for installation. They were to deliver a description of the Phase II activities to the Homeowners Association this afternoon. The Board of Directors will review it tonight and set forth any conditions or changes to the hours, etc. that they would like to see. Apparently James M. Montgomery Inc. is still on schedule. 'Beverly W60d, Environ 6ntal Coordinator BW/sh V a 0 JAMEG M. MCNTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 17802 Sky Park Circle, Suite 201, Irvine, California 92714 / (714) 979-8733 C4�fo March 10, 1978 QQ��U ¢':,Mr. Chet PurcellBluffs Homeowners' Association2414 Vista del OroNewport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Purcell: 40.0060 WATER RESOURCES DIVISION RARL H. WIEBE FRED R.DUREN^ PAUL F. MEYERHOFER RONALD L. BARN During a City planning meeting held on March 3, 1978, we agreed to send to John Stuart and the Bluffs Homeowners' Association the scope and limitations'of our proposed exploratory program. The drilling program will begin in late March and will continue for about two weeks. During this time, ten boreholes will be drilled, of which about half will be on Bluffs property and half will be on City of Newport Beach right-of-way. The following drilling and well completion practices will be conducted in consideration of: 1. Public Safety • Street barricades will be used where necessary • Boreholes left unattended will be adequately covered 2. Drilling operations will be conducted during daylight hours and on week days. 3. Drilling noise will be kept to a minimum and will be below the maximum allowed by City ordinance. 4. Drilling site's will be restored to the same conditions that existed just prior to entry. If deviations from these practices are necessary for out -of -the -ordinary circumstances, the Bluffs Homeowners' Association manager will be notified immediately. Enclosed, you will also find the following: 1. A map showing proposed borehole locations; Z. Typical observation borehole construction; 3. A copy of our contract with the City of Newport Beach, which includes a statement of our liability; 4. Our Phase I report of the Bluffs Ground Water Study which details the scope of our exploratory program; 5. A copy of our certificate of workman's compensation insurance. y JAMES M. MONTGOMERx GONSUOG ENGDZEEEERS, INQ 17802 Sky Perk COSullo 201, INIno, Caltlornin 92714/ (714) 979-0733 Mr. Chet Purcell - 2 - March 10, 1978 We will notify the Bluffs Homeowners' Association several days prior to initiation of our drilling program. If you have any questions regarding the scope and conduct of our drilling program, please feel free to contact US. Respectfully submitted, Karl H. Wiebe Project Manager /pP cc: James Evans John Stuart Beverly Wood✓ • DAMES M. MONTCGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 17802 Sky Park Circle, Suite 201, Irvine, California 92714/ (714) 979-8733 February 24, 1978 CqR IVED n�mantMs. Beverly D. Wood 197Department of Community Developmentof City of Newport Beach oRI3300 Newport BoulevardCIFNewport Beach, California 92660} Dear Ms. Wood: WATER RESOURCES DIVISION EARL It. WIEDE FRED E. DUREN, IR. PAUL F. MEYERNOFER RONALD L. DARTO In accordance with our previous conversations regarding the Bluffs Ground Water Study, we are transmitting this progress report addressed to Mr. R. V. Hogan. It briefly summarizes the results of Phase I, as defined in our agreement, dated January 25, 1978. Also presented are recom- mendations for additional work to be completed during Phase II of the study. We were pleased to have the opportunity to briefly review the project with Mr. James Evans in our offices on February 23, 1978. During this meeting,, we discussed three general subjects. The first subject concerned permits necessary to carry out our drilling and trenching program, as well as the proximity of our proposed exploratory sites to existing subsurface utilities. Mr. Evans offered his assistance in obtaining the necessary permits and inspections from the City Department of Public Works and in obtaining permission to drill on the property managed by the Bluffs Homeowners -Association. The second subject discussed during the meeting concerned the clarification of Montgomery's potential liability and responsibility for trench work conducted during the project, with specific regard to any future slope instability problems in the bluff area. As you know, we have agreed to 11... return the sites of such work to those conditions which existed just prior to entry... 11. Mr. Evans said that he would review this subject with the City staff and report back to us. - The third subject of our meeting concerned surface completion of the obser- vation wells with meter boxes or other suitable traffic cover. It would _ probably be most desirable for the City to install these boxes to insure safety and proper construction, Mr. Evans indicated that he would contact the Department of Public Works concerning this matter. Our drilling contractor will be available to begin exploratory operations in approximately three weeks. Hopefully, this will provide sufficient time to secure any necessary right -of -entry permits. 9 i JAMES M. MONTGOMERY,CONSUOG ENGINEERS, INC. I 17002 Sky Park aSulte 201, Irvine, Calilornla 92714/(714) 979.8733 Ms. Beverly D. Wood - 2 - February 24, 1978 We are pleased to provide this brief progress report for Phase I investigations of the Bluffs Ground Water Study. If we can supply any additional information or clarify our recommendations, please let us know. Very truly yours, e7✓ A Rort H. R Project Engine Karl H. Wiebe Project Manager Epp cc: P. Gatsoulis Enclosures i • I • .JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. law 17802 Sky Park Circle, Suite 201, Wine, California 92714 / (714) 979-8733 February 24, 1978 WATER RESOURCES DIVISION EARL R. WIEDE n. FRED K DUREN. 3% `V PAUL F. MEYERNOFER S I / RONALD L. DARTO I2EC61VED �(t -/ CD,hmumty `C'i Mr., R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach FED C' 3300 Newport Boulevard �pR ect1P Newport Beach, CA 9266" 4xEWPp+wF' Dear Mr. Hogan: ! _� In consideration of our -previous conversations with Ms. Beverly D. Wood on the Bluffs Ground Water Study, and in accordance with the provisions of our contract which state, " ..Provide written recommendations to the City for exploratory drilling, piezometer construction and field mapping program to provide required additional surface and subsurface information... we have prepared this brief letter report. Included is a summary of our progress to date, the results of our review, and a recommended study and exploration program. The Bluffs study area is shown on Figure 1. In order to obtain an understanding of the nature and movement of ground water in and through the study area, a number of basic tasks have been completed. These include the following: 1. Collection and review of all pertinent reports on soils and geology in the study area, as well as available hydrogeologic analyses. Information obtained included 32 reports which had.. been prepared for the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company, Holstein Industries, the California Division of Mines and Geology,- and the United States Geologic Survey. 2. Evaluation of all available geologic maps, grading plans, -avhd-aerial-photographs for the Bluffs area: .-_ 3. - Aeview_and evaluation of all subsurface exploration data and - - - .borehole logs. 4. Collection and review of mineral analyses of seepage samples. 5-. Completion ofreconnaissancegeologic mapping in the study area,- with emphasis on the hydrogeologic conditions. JAMES M. MONTGOMERRCONSUOG ENGINEERS,INC. I 17802 Sky Park *uite 201. Irvine, California 92714/ (714) 979.8733 Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director - 2 - February 24, 1978 Subsequent to this review and data completion, all available geologic data was joined on a single base map. This provided a clearer overview of the geologic nature of the Bluffs, and its significant geologic and hydrologic interrelationships. It also allowed a determination of those locations where additional information would be required for the ground water investigation. The geologic framework of the Bluffs area includes northerly dipping Miocene and Pliocene -age sandstones, siltstones and shales which are unconformably overlain by Pleistocene -age terrace deposits of sand and silty sand. However, in a large part of the study area, specific infor- mation will be required on the thickness and attitude of these major units and their permeability, and also on the nature of local ground water bodies. To obtain this specific information, the construction of a number of explora- tory bore holes and piezometers will be required. From these boreholes, we will obtain data on the nature of Quaternary terrace deposits and underlying Tertiary bedrock; the permeability of any aquifer units; and the elevation and quality of any ground water encountered. Additionally, exploration trenches (backhoe pits) will be required near the base of the bluffs. This trenching program will provide information on the nature of bedrock units beneath the surficial coluvial materials and cliff rubble and also on the precise location of seepage, its quantity and mineral quality. In order to accomplish these study goals, it is recommended that the exploratory program undertaken include the following specific items: 1. Drill, excavate and log ten bore holes, as located on Figure 2. Six bore holes will be constructed with piezometers, and the remaining four will be used to define the hydraulic parameters of the bedrock units and terrace deposits. 2. - _ Excavate and log.six backhoe pits. at'the base of,the bluffs,; : - - - as located on Figure Z. The backhoe- andboreexcavation sites -will be returned -to conditions. .; that existed just prior to entry. Ground water levels will'be monitored - -in all piezometer wells, -and ground water samples will be. collected for mineral analysis to aid in determining the source and movement of ' '-- ground water.- Data collected in this exploration program will be used - to 'develop detailed recommendations for,possible remedial measures? - and-td prepare a definitive report describing the ground water regimen in the Bluffs area. — A_ JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSUL Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director 17802 Sky Park CIrOr[to 201. Irvine• California 927141(714) 979.8733 - 3 - February 24, 1978 Subsequent to comments you may have on this recommended program, and the completion of required right-of-way agreements by the City, we plan to initiate the drilling and trenching activities. If we can provide any additional information on this study or explanation of our recom- mendations, please let us know. Very truly yours, Robert H. amsey Project Engi er Karl H. Wiebe Project Manager DPP cc: 'P. Gatsoulis Enclosures If .Al City Council Meeting December 19, 1977 Agenda Item No. H-2(g) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 14, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Groundwater Study of the Bluffs Area Suggested Action If desired, authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $24,000 of which $20,000 will be used to fund the City's share of the ground- water study of the Bluffs Area to be performed by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., per their Proposal #1. Approve Resolu- tion No. authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., to perform the study. Background and Analysis At the meeting on December 12, 1977, the City Council authorized a study of the groundwater conditions in the -Bluffs Area to determine if a groundwater problem exists, the source and destination of ground- water in the area, and to develop recommendations for mitigating the problems. The scope of work from the proposal is attached to this report for your review. The Council also determined that $4,000 of the cost of the study would be paid by the developer (Holstein Indus- tries), and the remaining $20,000 would be funded by the City. The staff is in the process of preparing a final contract with James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. A resolution has been prepared for Council consideration which will authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with the engineers as soon as it is in its final form. A budget amendment has been prepared to set up the account for payment of the contract. The City will contribute $20,000, and the developer will add the remaining $4,000 to the account. Recommendation If desired, approve the budget amendment for additional funds ($20,000) to fund the City's share of the groundwater study, and approve Resolu- tion No. which authorizes the Mayor to execute the contract with James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.,, to perform the study as proposed. Respectfully submitted, R. V. HOGAN, Director DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT By -- BEVERLY•' WOOD Enviro'mental Coordinator BDW/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1) Scope of Work, James M. Montgomery Proposal No 2 Budget Amendment 3) Resolution to Authorize Execution of Contract DAMES M. MONTGOMER-e, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 17802 Sky Park Circle, Suite 201, Irvine, California 92714 / (714) 979-8733 August 5, 1977 Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach City Hall - 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Gentlemen: / D`v Communecetity ITDevuupment pt. - AUG 5 7977,,- l,•� NEwre,TYr 8eae6{, CALIF. WATER RESOURCES DIVISION RARL It. WIF.DE FRED E. DURLN. JR. PAUL F. MEYLRIIOPER RUNALD L. DARTO In response to your recent request for proposals dated July 11, 1977, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., is pleased to submit proposals for both "The Bluffs Geohydrologic Study" and "The Bluffs Ground Water Interception Design Study". It is our understanding that separate presentations should be made for the two studies. As you know, our firm has recently completed a detailed hydrogeologic analysis of ground water flow regimen in the terrace deposits and fractured siltstone beds which surround the City's Big Canyon Reservoir. That study included exploratory drilling, permeability testing, ground water sampling, observation piezometer construction, recharge/percolation studies and dewatering considerations. In the past, our staff has also analyzed the City's ground water supply situation and performed analyses of the supply wells. The staff of James M. Montgomery has, for the past 15 years, undertaken detailed hydrogeologic studies for The Irvine Company, Irvine Ranch Water District, Costa Mesa County Water District, Orange County Water District, and the Cities of Santa Ana, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. These investigations have included subsurface mapping, water well location, design, construction, supervision and aquifer testing; exploratory drilling with selective aquifer testing and trace mineral analyses; salinity barrier studies including monitoring well and piezometer design and construction; and, desalting studies. The nature of Montgomery's experience in ground water studies is more fully described in our attached Water Resources Brochure. The technical staff of geologists and hydrologists who would perform the studies described in Proposals No. 1 and No. 2, include Ralph Phraner and Karl Wiebe, hydrogeologists, and Fred Duren, engineering hydrologist. The background and qualifications of these individuals are shown on the attached bio-sketches. P L A N N I N G ... RESEARCH ... ENVIRONMENTAL E N G I N E E R I N G VI i 17802 Sky Puk Clrols, Suits 201, Irvin, Ctlilomh 9271471714) 979.8733 T ti City of Newport Beach - 2 - August 5, 1977 The description of our services which are detailed in the two scopes of work also includes the services of our State licensed Water Quality Laboratory in Pasadena. Estimates of fees which should be budgeted for each study are presented at the end of both proposals. These fees are based upon the estimated time required and the hourly rates of the individuals above. A schedule of average rates for technical personnel classifications is attached. We look forward to discussing these proposals with your staff in more detail. If we can provide any additional information, please let us know. Very truly yours, Karl H. Wiebe Chief Hydrogeologist 9.71 Attachments ,3 1P PROPOSAL NO. 1 THE BLUFFS GEOHYDROLOGIC STUDY J - � (2!14&r ' The purpose of this study is to investigate the source, occurrenced movement of ground water in and through the study area, as defined inri the- City of Newport Beach's request for proposal, dated July 11, 1977. The scope of studies may be defined as follows: PHASE I 1. Review all pertinent soils and geologic data and reports available within the City's files, and evaluate that data in relation to the proposed project. 2. Provide recommendations for additional data collection required, to include: a. Collection, review and evaluation of data, maps and reports from The Irvine Company, the University of California, the California Department of Water Resources and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. b. Detailed recommendations for exploratory drilling, piezometer construction and field mapping program to provide required additional surface and subsurface information. PHASE II 1. Drill and construct approximately 10 exploratory drill holes and piezometers, and conduct short-term pumping or "slug" tests to determine hydraulic properties of the aquifers. Z. Define and map the terrace/bedrock contact, insofar as possible, along the Bluffs and at the sites of the exploratory borings. 3. Excavate and map backhoe trenches in seepage areas at base of the Bluffs along Backbay Drive and conduct limited -scale evapo -transpiration studies. 4. Conduct a detailed program of ground water sampling and mineral analyses, using advanced in-house constituent analytical techniques. 0 w 5. From the available data, construct interpretive maps depicting ground water elevation contours, bedrock eleva- tions and thickness contours of the terrace materials. 6, When the above tasks are completed, the following items of work would be undertaken: a. Determine the character of the underlying aquifers. b. Determine whether flows are confined to the bedrock - terrace interface and provide supporting information. C. Provide a map showing the generalized configuration of the terrace -bedrock contact surface. d. Determine whether areas outside the Bluffs contribute ground water to the study area, e. Determine existing flow direction(s) of subsurface waters. f. Compare bedrock elevation data to ground surface elevations to delineate areas which may experience potential problems from the buildup of ground water. g. Estimate the quantity of subsurface inflow and outflow in the study area. 7. Provide recommendations for location and installation of permanent observation and monitoring facilities. 8. Summarize limitations of study. 9. Prepare a final report describing the ground water regimen and provide conclusions regarding the source, movement and ultimate destination of ground waters in the area. 10. Provide detailed recommendations for remedial measures, including modification of patterns and application rates of irrigation waters and the design of potential dewatering facilities. Based upon our understanding of the level of effort required to complete tasks included in Phase I and II, and in consideration of the hourly rate schedule presented in Appendix A, we recommend that $24, 000 be budgeted for the completion of the work in Proposal No. 1. - 2 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUEST FOR FUNDS Date December 14, 1977 TO: Finance Director FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FUNDS - BA-46 Request for additional funds, $2000 Funds are not available in the current budget. Additional appropriation to Account # 022997158 is requested. Additional funds are needed for: The City will fund $20,000 of a $24,000 Groundwater Study of the Bluffs Area of the City. The additional $4,000 of the cost will be deposited by the developer (Holstein Indust'ries) into the account. The consultant who will perform the study is James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Request for transfer of funds, $ Transfer from Acount # Funds are available in the current budget. Transfer of funds is needed for: Approved: City Manager Finance pirector to # C11 Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 'Ao 1C 9 ooiP�t FG 3i \, December 12, 1977 INDEX Mayor Dostal opened the public hearing regarding General General Plan Amendment 77-3, Parts C and D, as Plan follows: (673) 77-3-C: A proposed amendment to the Residential Growth Element to revise the definition of "buildable acreage" to exclude areas dedicated for park purposes and areas to be used for street purposes. 7-3-D: A proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements creating a new density category of "High Density Residential -- Greater than 10 DU's per Buildable Acre," and amending the Land se Plan and Residential Growth Plan Ps as appropriate. A report was pri'@ented from the Community Development Depart\entMotion x The hearing was clfter it was determined Ayes x x x that no one desire x x x x \hheard. It was agreed to take a vote on parts C and D separately before a m000aapprove. General Plan Amendment segment 77i -C was approved. Motion x Ayes x x x x x Noes x Absent x Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to approve Ayes x x General Plan Amendment segment 77-3-D, which Noes x x x x motion failed to carry. Absent x Motion x Resolution No. 9231, accepting the Negative -9231 Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment Ayes Noes x x x x x x 77-3-C, was adopted. Absent x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council table. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from the Council table due to a possible conflict of interest on this item of business. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Eastbluff ment Department regarding a re ue t initiated by Drainage the City of Newport Beach, Holstein Industries (2336) and the Bluffs Homeowners' Association to authorize�a.study of the groundwater conditions T in the Bluffs area. A report was presented from the City Attorney. A letter from The Irvine Company declining to participate in the funding of the groundwater study was presented. Volume 31 - Page 308 ArY OF NEWPORT BEICH "r"'o COUNCILMEN p N � < oTyy s and i rat 1 Regular Council Meeting Place: Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: December 12, 1977 MINUTES INnl:v Present x x x x x x x Roll Call. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett made a motion to waive the reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 28, 1977, approve as written and order filed. Councilman Kuehn asked that the motion be amended to correct the vote on the second item under 'Current Business" to reflect her negative vote on that item, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Barrett's amended motion, which motion carried. in full of all ordinances and resolutions Motion x deration was waived, and the City Clerk was Ayes x x x x x x x read by titles only. \di�cted Dostal opened the public hearing regarding Tract 10135 ntative Map of Tract No. 10135, a request hard R. Cantrell, to establish one lot ur lots now exist to permit the conversion of eigh residential units into an eight -unit residents 1 condominium complex on property located at 421 - 427 East Bay Avenue, on the southwester corner of East Bay Avenue and Adams Street on th Balboa Peninsula, zoned R-3. A report was pr seated from the Community Develop- ment Department. Lawrence Wilson, Vi a President of Robert Bein, William Frost and As ociates, representing the owner, addressed the until and stated they were in agreement with the commendations and condi- tions of the Planning Co ission and that he was present to answer any qua Lions. Motion x The hearing was closed afte it was determined Ayes x x x x x x x that no one else desired to b heard. Motion x The Tentative Map of Tract No. 135 was approved, Ayes x x x x x x x incorporating by reference the f dings and conditions recommended by the Plan ing Commission and with the additional condition t t a require- ment for an enforceable method of re bilitation or replacement of structures be added n the CCSR's. 2. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from th Council table due to a possible conflict of interest on this item of business. Volume 31 - Page 307 ArY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN AO y 00 �'p �q�m�Ty! OTy �2n anti cell � December 12, 1977 MINUTES Motion Ayes Noes Absent x x x x, x x x x James Dooley, representing Holstein Industries, addressed the Council and suggested that the study be a condition of their maps, and that they be allowed to file their maps. William Holstein addressed the Council and stated they were willing to pay their fair share for the study. Proposal No 1 of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. was authorize„ d at approximate cost of $24,000.00 with Holstein Industries, Inc. to pay approximately^$4000.00 of_that cost, and it was directed that Holstein Industries be allowed to go ahead and file their subdivision maps concurrent with the study. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council table. 2. Councilman McInnis, Chairman, gave a verbal Planning report on the recommendations of the Council Comsn Appointments Committee regarding the vacancy on (530F) the Planning Commission. Motion x Timothy Haidinger was appointed to the Planning Ayes x x x x Commission to fill the unexpired term of Larry Noes x x x Lynch ending June 30, 1981. 3. Councilman Rogers' (District 1) appointment o Litter Nancy Moore as a member of the Litter Contr CAC Motion x Citizens Advisory Committee to fill the (2046) Ayes x x x x x x x unexpired term of Anita J. Ferguson end g December 31, 1977, was confirmed. 4. The request signment of the ontract for Armstrong oil productiArmstrong P roleum Corpora- Petroleum tion to Partp Propertie Company and (122) Motion x Petro -Lewis ation was eferred to the Ayes x x x x x x x staff for fustudy.5. /An A letter frog D elopment Corp. was pre- Harbor sented askinc to reconsider its decision Permit of October 1denying Harbor Permit (304F) Application 8 by Eddy Meredith requesting an exceptione Harbor Permit Policies to allow the ction of a cantilevered deck over Coun tidelands at #38 Linda Isle. Motion x A rep t was presented from the Marine Department. B ause the applicant has secured an approved Ayes x x x x x x x ncroachment permit fiom the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and because the State Lands Division has no objection to the issuance of the permit, Harbor Permit Application #134-38 was / reconsidered and approved. 6. A report from the City Manager concerning the Newport Center Branch Library was presented with a report from the City Librarian and a letter of recommendation from the Board of Library Trustees. Library (2030) r Volume 31 - Page 309 CI'i'Y OF NEWPORT BEICH COUNCILMEN py�AO A\f '�� N9�OG��' yZ F.�! ^ey�� Rni i cei i N � December 12, 1977 MINUTES INDEX Motion` x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett made a motion to approve Alternate "C", which is to construct a 14,000 square foot building using a new,design; \ to include an inflationary factor; and to direct the staff to implement, City Librarian Brad Simon gave a brief staff report in answer to questions by the Council, Spencer Covert, Chairman of the Board of Library Trustees, addressed the Council regarding Option "C" and reiterated their request that a 10% inflationary factor be added. Councilman Ryckoff made the following statement for the record: "Although I believe a 10,000 are-foot branch library would be quite quate, and so voted in the past, I will port this motion because the Council previously mitted to the 14,000 square -foot size building. o feel that the "C" option is the best of the \htee offered," Ayes x x x x x x xppte was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Barrett's mots n, which motion carried. CURRENT BUS SS: 1. A report as presented from the Community Tract 8336 Developmen Department regarding the Final Map of Tract No. 8336, a request of Newport View, Inc. to subdi ide 20.801 acres into ten building sites, four to for landscaping and parking and one model compl site for condominium develop- ment on property 9ocated south of Hospital Road and southeasterly Superior Avenue in the Planned Community o Versailles -on -the -Bluffs, zoned P-Co Chet Stare, representia the developer, addressed the Council and agreed to modify their CC&R'a to incorporate a condition rearding an enforceable method of rehabilitating or\:eyplacing structures. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett made a tion to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 8336, incorporating by reference the condition recomm nded by the Planning Commission and at tin an additional condition in the CC&R's for destroy or damaged structures; to instruct the City Engi�neer not to sign the Final Map until the conditionk relating to the fire access have been satisfied; d to adopt Resolution No. 9232 authorizing the Mayor R-9232 and City Clerk to execute agreements betwe the City of Newport Beach and Newport View, Inc. for construction of improvements in Tract No. 8336 (south of Hospital Road and southeasterly of Superior Avenue, Versailles -on -the -Bluffs). The following residents of Newport Crest addressed the Council and opposed the project: Louise Greeley, Chairman of the Legislative Committee, and Dorothy Parker. Volume 31 - Page 310 • To: From: Subject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY December 12, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Attorney Groundwater Problem In The Bluffs F-1 At their meeting of November 14, 1977, the City Council reviewed a report from the Community Development Department relating to • alternative proposals for groundwater studies in the Bluffs area. This office was requested to review the legal liability as to the party or parties responsible for studying and correct- ing the groundwater problem in the Bluffs. Unfortunately, we are unable to assign this responsibility because of the lack of knowledge as to the origin, source and flow of the groundwater. To date, the City's experts have suggested the following sources or combination of sources as the possible cause of the problem: 1. City water main and sewer trunk lines in the area; 2. Metropolitan Water District distribution line; 3. Natural underground springs; 4. Overwatering by homeowners association or individual homeowners; 5. Fractured private homeowner water and/or sewer lines or swimming pool foundations. Without knowing the specific source or sources of the groundwater, equally valid arguments could be made for holding the City, the The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 12, 1977 Groundwater Problem In The Bluffs landowner, the lessee or the developer liable for investigating and correcting It would, therefore, seem that it would of all parties concerned to share in a reach a solution to this problem. DDO/bc cc: Community Development Director individually or jointly the groundwater situation. be in the best interest cooperate effort to DENNIS D. O NEIL I City Attorney • • • 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 December 8, 1977 Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd.; Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: As requested by the City, The Irvine Company has reviewed the staff report and study proposals for a groundwater investigation in the Bluffs area. We have also given consideration to the request that the Company assume the Homeowners Association share of the study cost. • Inasmuch as the Bluffs development is within one of our planned communities, The Irvine Company is willing to cooperate with the City in the progress of such a study by providing necessary staff time to review the progress and conclusions of the study and provide any data available from our files. However, based on the information at hand, we cannot find any basis for our participation in funding of the study if it is determined to be necessary. Sincerely, 6;Go rdoti Director, Engineering Planning GBJ:Jp V• , DEC 9 CITY OF NEWpoRT BEACH, CALIF. , RECEIVED '� Community Development Dept. 1977P- City Council Meeting December 12, 1977 Agenda Item No. F-1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 7, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs in connection with the preparation of an updated Environmental Impact Report, and approval of the cost allocation. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach, Holstein Industries, and the Bluffs Homeowners Association isSuggested Action If desired, authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs area to be performed by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., per their Proposal #1, dated August 5, 1977; and specifically allocate the cost of the study; OR Authorize the study of groundwater conditions related only to Tracts 8681 and 8682, to be performed by John Mann as part of the update of the Environmental Impact Report on the subject project. Background and Analysis At the City Council meeting on November 14, 1977, the staff was directed to provide additional information supplemental to the staff report prepared for Council's review on that date. Specifically, the Council asked for the following information: • 1. A definition of what the City staff considers to be the groundwater problem in the Bluffs Area, including expert data where possible. 2. A legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the legal liability of the City, The Irvine Company, the Homeowners' Association, and Holstein Industries to study and/or resolve the groundwater problems. 3. An indication of whether or not The Irvine Company is willing to cooperate with the City and/or the developer in financing the James M. Montgomery Proposal #1. In response to the first item, the City's Grading Engineer has pre- pared a report discussing the general conditions in the Bluffs Area. This report incorporates information previously submitted in several geotechnical investigations as well as field inspections performed as recent as November, 1977. (See attached report and illustration.) The City Attorney has prepared an opinion which addresses itself to the second point as to legal responsibilities. It appears that there isgroundwater no clear liability as to the solution to the problem until the intentwofeMontgomery1'sitself is Proposal No. 1 Allcopydefined, the the Attorney's report is attached. TO: City Council - 2. 11 Finally, The Irvine Company has been apprised of the situation. . The information regarding the project, including the proposals under consideration, has been transmitted to them for their review, and they have been requested to respond., indicating their willingness to participate. To date no officail response has been forwarded to this department, but it is anticipated that they will be prepared to answer our request by the Council meeting on Decem- ber 12, 1977. Recommendation In view of the additional information and legal interpretation, the alternatives and recommendations as presented in the November 14, 1977 staff report appear to remain valid. That report is attached for your reference. It is hoped that input from the Irvine Company will be available for Council consideration at the meeting on December 12, 1977. Depending on their response, the scope, cost and shared expense of the environmental studies to be performed, as suggested in the previous staff report, may be considered with the additional information provided here, and a determination made to facilitate the developers' request to proceed with his application. Respectfully submitted, • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DirectorBy rBEVERLY WO D Enviro mental Coordinator BDW/kk Attachments for Council only: 1 Report from Grading Engineer 2 Report from City Attorney 3 Staff Report of 11/14/77 • 0 11/21/77 SUBMITTED BY: Jim Evans, Grading Engineer BLUFFS GROUNDWATER: Analysis of Existing Conditions Oaff has concluded that groundwater conditions exist which could lead to serious problems, although little evidence is visible at this time. This opinion is based upon information supplied in the April 1976 report by Evans, Goffman and McCormick for the areas currently proposed for development, observations made around the perimeter of the Bluffs area, and complaints by residents over a period of years. No record of recent complaints from area residents has been observed. This is iri contrast to numerous complaints particularly during the rainy season prior to 1976. Unfortunately, no complaint records were kept during that time period so verification is only by individual memories. The drop in the number of complaints can be explained by the concurrent consideration of development for these tracts as well as the drought conditions and attention to landscape irrigation. The minimal amounts of rainfall would tend to reduce the amount of water penetrating into the ground, as would the reported 20Y,reduction in the amounts of irrigation water used for landscaping. Isontribution to the groundwater system has not been eliminated however. Examination of the bluff perimeter the week of November 21, 1977 revealed numerous springs, seeps and damp areas along the perimeter slopes of the tract (see attached sketch). In addition, groundwater was observed during soils exploration and testing for proposed Tract 8681 by Evans, Goffman, and McCormick. No free groundwater was observed for Tract 8682 during the same investigation, possibly due to a different type of bedrock. A recent report prepared for a church site by Pacific Soils Engineering dated June, 1977 located on Mar Vista revealed groundwater contained in bedrock fractures below the contact between the terrace materials. Reports recently submitted by Soils International, the soils and geology consultant involved with the original development and prepared over an interval between 1965 to 1971, indicates that at least some of the problems occurring subsequent to development required remedial subdrain installation. All of the above data lead staff to conclude that additional information and study 0.s required to fully comprehend, anticipate, and remedy potential problems due to groundwater flow. A number of bluff failures in Newport Bay have occurred in recent years due almost solely to groundwater conditions, some of which have endangered public improvements. Whether future problems will be observed in homes within the development is only a guess without additional study. • i, Bluffs Groundwater Conditions XX X X DAMP ARGA5/ VINEMEXAL 5PRING6 vO jw % EXISTING 5PRINQ5 Big Canyon :. !a Rd. ON ADYM(. PLLNNI,d4 4WIll" - COMM, DM MPT, It • ZI • ii 0 3 • To: From: Subject:: • • ,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY December 12, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Attorney Groundwater Problem In The Bluffs At their meeting of November 14, 1977, the City Council reviewed a report from the Community Development Department relating to alternative proposals for groundwater studies in the Bluffs area. This office was requested to review the legal liability as to the party or parties responsible for studying and correct- ing the groundwater problem in the Bluffs. Unfortunately, we are unable to assign this responsibility because of the lack of knowledge as to the origin, source and flow of the groundwater. To date, the City's experts have suggested the following sources or combination of sources as the possible cause of the problem: area; 1. City water main and sewer trunk lines in the 2. Metropolitan Water District distribution line; 3. Natural underground springs; 4. Overwatering by homeowners association or individual homeowners; 5. Fractured private homeowner water and/or sewer lines or swimming pool foundations. Without knowing the specific source or sources -of the •."oundwater, equally valid arguments could be made for holding the city, the A 1] N, The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 12, 1977 Groundwater Problem In The Bluffs landowner, the lessee or the developer individually or jointly liable for investigating and correcting the groundwater situation. It would, therefore, seem that it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned to share in a cooperate effort to reach a solution to this problem. DENNIS D. O NEIL City Attorney DDo/bc cc: Community Development Director 0 0 City Council Meeting November 1421977 _ Agenda Item No. G-lA • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 8, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Alternative Proposals for Groundwat Request to authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs in connection with the preparation of an updated Environmental Impact Report, and approval of the cost allocation. INITIATED BY: aThe nd theyof Bluffswport Homeowners,Holstein Industries, Association • Suggested Action If desired, authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs area to be performed by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., per their Proposal #1, dated August 5, 1977; and specifically allocate the cost of the study; OR Authorize the study of groundwater conditions related only to Tracts t of the update of8the nEnvironmental Impact mReport ed by Jonnthe nsubjecn as r subject project. Background Plans for the development of Tracts No. 8681 and 8682 (see location map attached) were initially submitted to the City in May 1973, and subsequently approved by the City Council along with the certifica- tion of the Environmental Impact Report on May 27, 1975, following • numerous hearings at both the Council and Planning Commission levels. On December 13, 1976, the Council denied a request to extend Use Permits No. 1730, 1731 and the Tentative Tract Maps No. 8681 and 8682, primarily because of the concerns raised regarding the lack of information to fully analyze the groundwater conditions present in the area. At the time the request was made for the extension of the use permits and tentative maps, the applicant (IDH, a Joint Venture, Costa Mesa) and the City staff recommended the following definition of the groundwater studies to be performed in response to the concerns of the Commission and the homeowners' association. The City shall require, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and prior to the approval of landscaping plans and landscaping watering systems, groundwater studies which will determine the major sources of subsurface waters, the general direction of groundwater movement, the probable destination of under- ground waters and estimate the quantity, quality and velocity of underground water movement. The harmful effects of such water movement shall be analyzed and recommendations shall be made to alleviate problems byich theare now proposednexistence development. Theich cityould shallecaused engage . the consultants necessary to perform the tasks and determine the appropriate share of the costs to be paid by the developer." TO: City Council - 2. This clarification was intended to establish the City's intent in requiring the necessary studies. • It is the applicant's intention at this point to prepare materials and file the necessary applications to reactivate the proposed project. In so doing, it has been determined that it is necessary to update the certified EIR and include further information regard- ing groundwater conditions. In view of the previous discussions on this subject, and given that the City must contract with the consultant to prepare the necessary documentation, the staff initiated a request for proposals to per- form a variety of groundwater studies in connection with the use permit and tentative map applications. Proposals were received in August from several consultants and subsequently evaluated by the staff. Four alternatives were selected, discussed with the appli- cant, and forwarded to the Bluffs Homeowners' Association for review and comment. These included the following 1. James M, Montgomery, Proposal N1: A complete study of the groundwater conditions over the entire Bluffs Area. Cost: Approx. $24,000 2. James M. Montgomery, Proposal N2: An intercept design study to remedy existing problems in con- junction with data generated in Proposal N1. This study includes a future groundwater condition monitoring system. Cost: Approx. $11,000 3. Leighton b Associates: An intercept design study to remedy existing problems in the Bluffs Area. The monitoring capability is not included in this proposal. Cost: Approx. $211500 4. A study limited to groundwater conditions in the subject parcels, sufficient for the purposes of inclusion in an Environmental Impact Report and complete enough to determine environmental find- ings for the subject project. Cost: Approx. $4,000 Alternatives and Recommendations . Further analysis of each of these proposals is included in the attachment to this report, as well as the staff's evaluation of the benefits of each of the studies. To date the Bluffs Homeowners Association has not officially indicated to the staff any prefer- ence for selection of the study consultant or the type of study to be performed. There also has been no indication of a willingness to share the costs, although the information derived from the studies would be of benefit to the City and the Homeowners' Association as well as satisfying the environmenUlimpact analysis requirements of the subject project. The applicant has forwarded a written response, which is attached to this staff report, stating the position of Holstein Industries on this matter. It is the staff's recommendation that the City Council authorize the groundwater study to be performed by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., and that the study include Proposal N1. This pro- posal will provide a complete assessment of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs Area, and it will fulfill the intent of the study as recommended in December 1976. The information should be sufficient to make an environmental determination on the project. Three alter- native cost allocations to accomplish the study are suggested for • TO: City Council - 3. • Council consideration as follows: 1. Equal cost sharing among the City, the Homeowners Association and Holstein Industries ($8000 each). 2. Equal share between the Homeowners' Association and Holstein Industries ($12,000 each). 3. Equal share between the City and Holstein Industries ($12,000 each). In the event that either the City or the Homeowners' Association fail to participate, then the staff recommendation would be to proceed with Study #4 to be accomplished by John Mann,under contract to the City, which would be a study of groundwater conditions limited to the subject parcels. The information would be sufficient for the groundwater section of the Environmental Impact Report update, and this study would constitute the minimum requirements for proceeding with the application for the proposed project. The cost of the study ($4000) would be paid by the applicant through the normal administrative procedures of Environmental Impact Report preparation. .Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By g *OD Environ ental Coordinator BDW/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1 Location Map 2 Staff Report for last Council action - 12/13/76 3 Memo from Grading Engineer - 6/1/77 • 4 Request for Proposals - 5 Staff Evaluations of Studydy Proposals - 9/8/77, 9/27/77 6) Letter from Holstein Industries - 10/25/77 is 1 �> >) YE.N • � � . Ft ' gyp" �) as _ [. Y s s ` t .. 7.._,.,. t •_ . _ _ �+_ rs T�i r \m � --. \ =-~ .".•may: 1 �Z//_ d; t3unr Y.4_• 57' S � �- rE--�� C14 ell L 0 0 city oT. �aM �ia`il � Newport B .r •12R � Ep �' (/� n� 44RaI7tY F�paKtKi Orv�st�u 6•{e•}} I,� fjr SCALE IN FEET` irr o•. _ i t _ • Y December 8, 1976 0 r City Council Meeting December 13, 1976 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Use Permit No 1730 (Extension) Request to permit the construction of seven attached related parking and single-family dwellings with landscape areas. AND Tentative Map Tract No 8682 (Extension) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres into seven numbered single-family residential develop- lots for attached ment and one numbered lot to be developed as a land- and guest parking spaces. scape area, private driveways LOCATION: Lot 89, Tract 5878, located at 2122 Vista Entrada, of Vista westerly of Vista del Oro and easterly Entrada in "The Bluffs." ZONE: R-4-B-2 PRD APPLICANT: IDH, a Joint Venture, Costa Mesa OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., Huntington Beach SUBJECT: Use Permit No 1731 (Extension) Request to permit the construction of seven attached and single-family dwellings with related parking • landscape areas. AND Tentative Map Tract No 8681 (Extension) Request to subdivide 1.75 acres into seven numbered single-family residential develop- lots for attached ment and one numbered lot to be developed as a land- scape area, private driveways and guest parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 125, Tract 5435, located at 1976 Vista Caudal, del Oro and northeasterly southwesterly of Vista of Vista Caudal in "The Bluffs." ZONE: R-4-B-2 PRD APPLICANT: IDH, a Joint Venture, Costa Mesa OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., Huntington Beach TO: City Council - 2. Ap1)1 iCat10115 This is a request to extend the approval of four applications which in the Bluffs which were . propose to subdivide and develop two sites folmprly planned and designated for the construction of high-rise residential structures. The applications as approved by the Plan- City Council would allow the construction of a ning Commission and tol.at of fourteen dwelling units at a density and of a size, height, bedroom count, and architectural design in harmony with immediately surrounding dwellings. Plans for the development of these sites were initially submitted to approved by the City Council the. City in May, 1973, and subsequently along with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report on May 27, 1975, following numerous hearings at both the Council and levels. An Approval in Concept was issued on August 25, Commission 1975, and a permit was subsequently requested from the Regional Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission denied the application A Approval in Concept was issued by the on January 5, 1976. second City on June 21, 1976, However, inasmuch as the sites will no longer be within the permit boundary of the Coastal Zone after December 31st of this year, the applicant has decided not to pursue the Coastal Commission. City approvals will the matter further with expire on November 27th (i.e., eighteen months following the last City Council action) unless the applicant's request for an extension • is approved. This matter was considered by the Planning commission at their meet- 1976. At that time there was considerable discus- ing of October 21, sion as to whether this request should be considered as a discussion item or set for public hearing. The Commission subsequently deter- mined that they would start out by considering this matter as a directed to notify the Community discussion item, and the staff was Association and bring back the complete background materials on November 4, 1976. Procedures related to Planned Residential Develop- Municipal Code. Ap- ments are set forth under Chapter 20.51 of the eiv1and final subdivision maps plicable pertaining to tentative relocateand 6 Suggested Action If desired, approve the extension of Use Permits 1730 and 1731 and 8681 for a of not to the Tentative Maps of Tracts 8682 and period exceed two years (November 27, 1978), with the findings and subject to the conditions imposed by the City Council on May 27, 1975 or desired, deny the request. •if Pianning._Commission Recommendation At. its meeting of November 4, 1976, the Planning Commission voted 1 Absent) to recommend to the City Council that (5 Ayes, 1 No and the request for the extension of Use Permit No. 1730 and No. 1731 and the Tentative Maps of Tracts No. 8682 and 8681 be denied. At the time this matter was before the Commission, there was discus- sion regarding the Commission's recent recommendation and subsequent adoption by the City Council of an amendment which would prohibit thr extension of use permits beyond the initial approval period. In addition, there was considerable discussion regarding new soils and geology reports which had been prepared subsequent to the approvals granted by the City in May of 1975, Specifically there w,1q d concern that some of the conditions of approval pertaining to drainage, ground water, seepage, soil erosion, etc. were not as explicit as they should be and needed clarification. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes from the meeting of November 4, 1976 is attached. �� nn TO: City Council - 3, • Since the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1976. the staff has met with the applicant and developed language, in response to the concerns of the Commission and the homeowners' association, which could be incorporated into the minutes of the City Council's consideration of this matter and would establish the City's intent in requiring the necessary studies without modifying any of the existing conditions of approval. The sug- gested language is as follows: "The City shall require, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and prior to the approval of landscaping plans and landscaping watering systems, ground water studies which will determine the major sources of subsurface waters, the general direction of ground water movement, the probable destination of underground waters and estimate the quantity, quality and velocity of underground water movement. The harmful effects of such water movement shall be ' analyzed and recommendations shall be made to allevi- ate problems which are now in existence and which could be caused by the proposed development. The City • shall engage the consultants necessary to perform the tasks and determine the appropriate share of the costs to be paid by the developer." If the City Council concurs with this suggestion, it would be the intent of the Department of Community Development to retain the services of Dr. John Mann to perform the necessary studies. Dr. Mann has already submitted a proposal to the City with an estimated cost of $4900.00. If the City Council grants the extensions as requested by the applicant, it would be the intent of the Department,to require the applicant to share in the cost of the studies. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By • A ES D. HEW cto Ass KER stant Director - Planning ` JDH/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1) Vicinity Maps 2) Excerpt of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1976 3) Planning Commission staff report dated October 28, 1976, with attachments. 0 TO. FROM: SUBJECT: 0 Department of Community Development June 1, 1977 Director Grading Engineer Ground water studies required for Tract 8681-8682, Holstein Industries The ground water problems in the Bluffs development resolve themselves into two separate elements. The first and apparently most sensitive is that of ground water seepage into garage and home areas. The second and of greater concern to Public Works as well as to individuals living along the perimeter of the Bluffs is that of long term stability of the escarpment. The first problem is dealt with in the Evans, Goffman Report. This problem is and should be one considered as part of construction development. The recommendations dealing with this aspect are standard solutions generally provided by the soil engineering profession. One improvement on these standard recommendations is possible and I think, should be required in construction of the proposed buildings. The subdrains around the perimeter of the building should be constructed with designed filters for the soil. This process is not generally used due to the expense, but is a far more permanent solution than the general practice. Filter fabric could be used instead of a graded soil filter material. This extra design should only be required on those lots where the bedrock -terrace contact is exposed or is near ground surface. Drainage behind retaining walls should be required as a minimum for all units. The second problem is a larger scale problem dealing with the source(s), and movement of ground water in the Eastbluff area. The source(s) of ground water in the North Bluff area was only partially dealt with in the John Mann Study since the approach was to determine how much water was being placed on the ground in the common areas exceeding the plant requirements. Contributions from outside the North Bluff areas were not considered as part of the study nor were alterna- tive directions of flow other than the known problem area along the bluff edge considered. These factors should be considered as part of any new study on Eastbluff. These considerations require that the following scope of work be used: PHASE I 1). Review all pertinent soil and geologic data in the City's files. 2). Evaluate these data for pertinence to the proposed project. 3). Provide recommendations to the City if additional data are required which are not included in the City's files. • 0 • 0 Memo: To: Director re: Ground water studies for Tract 8681-8682 •June 1, 1977 Page 2 • • 0 PHASE II 4). Determine whether flows are confined only to the bedrock -terrace interface and if not, provide supporting information. 5). Provide a map showing the generalized configuration of the terrace -bedrock contact surface. 6). Determine whether areas outside the Eastbluffs development contribute ground water to the area. 7). Determine existing flow direction(s) of subsurface waters. B). Compare bedrock elevation data to ground surface elevations to delineate potential problem areas from ground water buildup. 9). Provide recommendations for location and installation of permanent monitoring devices. 10). Summarize limitations of the study. 11). Provide conclusions regarding the source, movement, and ultimate destination of ground water in the area. It would seem prudent to request proposals from other well qualified firms. These include: Glen Brown of LeRoy Crandall & Associates, and James Montgomery & Associates. This procedure may lead to a better proposal since several pro- posals could be compared on their merits. A study similar to the earlier John Mann investigation is not recommended at this time. The basis for this is that the earlier study had limitations which may be offset by the scope of work described above, and this scope of work will include a secondary evaluation of the earlier work to apply this to a different area. JIM EVANS JE:rw tQ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA June 9, 1977 Gentlemen: City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 673-2110 The City of Newport Beach invites your proposal for the preparation of a report on groundwater conditions in "The Bluffs." (See attached map.) This request is being solicited in response to the plans of Holstein Industries to subdivide two sites within the area for single family residential development. These sites are shown on the attached map and designated as Tracts 8681 and 8682. Use permits, tentative subdivision maps and an environmental impact report have previously been approved by the City. However, these approvals have since expired. The new proposal is identical to the previously approved request, however, % this case, the City is desirous of obtaining additional information as to the source and movement of ground water thru the sites and the surrounding area. A general scope of work to be performed is outlined below: PHASE I 1. Review all pertinent soil and geologic data in the City's files. 2. Evaluate the data in relation to the proposed project. 3. Provide recommendations to the City if additional data are required which are not included in the City's files. PHASE II 4. Determine whether flows are confined only to the bedrock -terrace interface and if not, provide supporting information. 5. Provide a map showing the generalized configuration of the terrace -bedrock contact surface. 6. Determine whether areas outside the Bluffs development contribute ground Water to the area. 7. Determine existing flow direction(s) of subsurface waters. U `0 • r 1 L • 0 Proposal in connection with ground water condition in "The Bluffs." Page 2. 8. Compare bedrock elevation data to ground surface elevations to delineate potential problem areas from ground water buildup. 9. ' Provide recommendations for location and installation of permanent monitoring devices. 10. Summarize limitations of the study. 11. Provide conclusions regarding the source, movement, and ultimate destination of ground water in the area. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this project, we would appreciate hearing from you by Your proposal should list the services you will provide. Your fees should be based on your standard hourly charges with a stipulated maximum fee. Please include in the proposal the name -and qualifications of the geologist(s) who will be performing the studies. You should familiarize yourself with the types of information already available prior to submitting a proposal. Please contact Jim Evans, City Grading Engineer, or myself if you need any additional informa- tion or have any further questions. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning JDH/sh :u�'.a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,� fir.. `4•, 640-2211 September 8, 1977 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES -THE BLUFFS GROUND WATER PROBLEMS SUBJECT: STAFF EVALUATION OF STUDY PROPOSALS Proposals for two different types of studies related to ground water problems of the Bluffs development in the City of Newport Beach. The first request for proposal consisted of only a ground water study of the Bluffs area; the second consisted of a review of the ground water problem locations, combined with design of an interceptor drain system to intercept problem ground water, and dispose of it in a manner to eliminate existing problems. The two studies were to have been mutually independent so that the City could authorize one or the other studies to be conducted but not both. Summerized below is the staff's evaluation of each proposal and a recommendation for the choice of consultant for each type of study. A. Ground water study: Products to be supplied by consultant: bedrock surface contour map, ground water contour map, summary of offsite and onsite contributions of ground water, 1) LeRoy Crandall & Associates: 50 exploratory drill holes, 15 observation wells, total cost $53,000 to $63,000. The'proposal includes a very complete analysis of the problem and a very thorough exploration program. Relies extensively on drilling to determine bedrock surface and ground water flow. 2) John Mann: No observation wells or exploratory drill holes, $4,000. It is staff's opinion that this estimate cannot provide the required exploration and evaluation needed to prepare the specified maps. 3) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.: 10 exploratory drill holes converted to observation wells, at least one pumping test, $24,000. The mix of field mapping and drill holes to supplement this information appears to be adequate to define the properties of the ground water flow. The price is reasonable and con- • sistent with good engineering practices. Recommendation: James M. Montgomery City Nall o 3300 Newport Botticvard, Newport Beach, California 92663 U 1� Memo Staff evaluation of study proposals. • Page 2 B. Design of system to intercept and divert ground water from problem areas: Products to be supplied by consultant: (a) evaluation of the entire Bluffs development for locations of ground water problems, (b) sufficient subsurface information for general depths of drain installation, (c) proposed outlet points for diversion of subsurface water, and (d) criteria for design of system. 1) LeRoy Crandall & Associates Divided into three phases, a) problem assessment, b) exploration including 50 drill holes, and c) detailed design of drain system and installation of monitoring. Cost: $58,000 to $63,000. The proposal, as was the geohyrologic study, is well thought out and very thorough and includes all necessary elements to satisfactorily complete the work. 2) Geotechnical Consultants: No specified number of drill holes but detailed methods outlined for progress and completion of work. Cost: $38,000 to $59,000. This proposal contains a sufficiently detailed methodology to allow our approval of the character of the work to be performed. Our opinion is that the requirements of the R.F.P. can be met with • the proposed methods and cost. 3) Leighton & Associates: Combination mapping with 20-25 drill holes combined with geophysical exploration. Cost: $21,500. The methods outlined, and the number of drill holes used can provide the required information. 4) James M. Montgomery: No drilling. Cost $11,000 It is our opinion that satisfactory design cannot be performed for this cost. 5) W.A. Wahler: Use of geophysical exploration and drilling. Extensive Phase I work (problem assessment). Cost: $37,600 to $41,941. The proposal is complete and the method proposed can accomplish the required work. Recommendation: Although the Leighton proposal appears to be slightly low, the work could be accomplished with the method proposed. Cost is very reasonable. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION' Although the Montgomery proposal appears to be low for the Interceptor Design . proposal, the combined cost of this design and the geohydrologic work would be competative with most of the other estimates for one or the other packages. Consideration should be given to this type of combination. 0 .J �@ Deportment of Community Development p.11'E: September 27, 1977 TO: Beverly Wood FROM: James Evans SUBJECT: Further evaluation of various options concerning groundwater studies in the Bluffs. REFERENCE: Tract #8681 6 8682 proposals to develop. Four options for study of groundwater conditions in the Bluffs development can be considered. These options involve: o provide i inforrma ionstudy for thewhich affectlimited groundwaterthe by thesematerial tworequired prt proposed developments. Some necessary background information and a requirement for mitigation treasures has been provided by the report authored by Evans, Goffman 6 McCormick, The sole identifiable beneficiary of this type of study would be the future owners of dwellings in the proposed developments. The proposed drain improvements would not'apparently solve any problems which currently totalized area tadjacent in the rwhich dmay share aer of the lcommon uffs esource of nuisancevelopnt except s a groundwater with the proposed development. 2. A complete study of groundwater conditions in the Bluffs area. This study would provide background material which would be necessary for evaluating the existing problems, and a basis for monitoring possible future changes in the volume and direction of flow of groundwater in the entire Bluffs development. It would not provide a drainage system design or would it provide adequate criteria for design of such a system. The beneficiary of this type of study would logically be the entire Bluffs community and, to some extent, the city since the background information would allow an evaluation of potential situations similar to those which occured in the north Bluffs area. The developer would benefit only as an owner of a parcel of land within the development. ce 9 groundwater. Thisdtypenoftstudy woulto d be limited toems from evaluationlofnknown problems in dwellings in the Bluffs development and the necessary field and office analysis to develop a drain to intercept and divert groundwater preliminarywdesigntofgthen system andmwouldhnotsputyanyuhardwaredint lthehe ground, It would not provide information or capability for evaluating or monitoring future groundwater conditions, • 1�1 Page 2 September 27, 1977 isSUBJECT: Further evaluation of various options concerning groundwater studies in the Bluffs. The beneficiaries of this study would appear to be only those homeowners currently experiencing problems from groundwater flow. The proposed development will probably have to install at least part of the drain system which their consultant has recommended, and therefore should not be considered the prime beneficiary of the system: If subsurface flow were to increase in the future, the system may not intercept all of the potentially damaging water. 4. The fourth option is a combination of options 2 & 3, where both studies are conducted and the system designed based on this information. This option would not provide the necessary constructed facilities but would provide the.necessary monitoring system to evaluate future changes in groundwater flow, and sufficient preliminary criteria to add to a system if it were to become necessary. The beneficiaries of such a combination would include the entire Bluffs community, the future occupants of the proposed development, and to some extent, the city, since the groundwater effects on existing and/or • proposed public improvement could be evaluated. Jw • 0 ji , _ 26411 - Li(il>!4 October 25, 1977 Mr. Milan Dostal, Mayor City of Newport Beach City Hall 3900 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: City Council Action on December 13, 1976 on Tract 8681 and Tract 8682; Use Permits 01730 and #1731 Dear Fir. Mayor: We have been asked by the City staff of the Community Development Department, Newport Beach Planning Commission, in collaboration with the Bluff Homeowners Association on our willingness to share in the expense of the completion of a ground water report in the Bluffs development area of Eastbluff. I would like to briefly review the history of the Holstein Company's development in the Bluffs and specifically, the three "high rise" sites designated as Tracts 8680, 8681 and 8682. In my review of the background of these particular sites, I will briefly comment and make emphasis on the so called "ground water complaints". The purpose of this background information is to refresh the memory of each Council member with the information and history of the three (3) projects and to point out that the latest so called "ground water problem" is a further attempt by the handful of homeowners who are sealing to discourage any further develop- ment whatsoever and that there really is not a potential "ground water. problem". 1966-Tracts 8680, 8681 and 8682 These specific tentative tracts were at the time one lot in each of Tracts 54351 5878 and 6230, Each was designated as a 60 unit high rise 3ocnilon . totalling 180 units. These were approved by the City Council subject to certain conditions. September, 1971 Agreement reached betemen The Irvine Company, Lhv 11o7steiu Company and the Bluff Homeowners Association as Lo the development of the sites into high rice units. 170 FAST SEYENTWIT11 STRIET, COSTA tIESA, CALIFORWA 92627 • (AREA 714) 642.9660 Olt 5485548 .. r • P , . I 1,. h 1 . . . • • r� 1 1� • r�I r �J Mr. Milan Dostal. October 25, 1977 Page Two 1972 The City of Newport Beach inacted a height limit, Ordinance 111454 restrict— ing the sites to lower density. May 11, 1973 Three sites are filed with tentative tract mans containing 40 units, then removed from the agenda for. revision. June 12, 1974 Three sites are filed with tentative tract maps containing 40 units, then removed from the agenda for final EIR. December 6, 1974 Three sites are refiled with tentative tract maps with 24 units and supporting EIR. January 21, 1.975 EIR accepted by the City Staff of Newoort Beach on the. three sites. May 1, 1975 Planning Commission first public hearing all on three subject sites. 1y 27. 1975 The third site (trade remnant) removed. (Removed from application so that only Tracts 8681 and 8682 are submitted with 17 units to the City Council). An extensive public hearinE was hold; Holstein Company accepts Proposed mall which calls for different floor plans and arrangements totalling 14 units, or 7 units on each site. CPnnc3.1 asks homeowners i.f they approve it and they said that they did, subject to Coastal Commission approval. PLEASE NOTE THAT ON ALL OF THE ABOVE HEARINGS, NO WATER PROBLEM, WAS PRESENTED WHATSOEVER. THE. ENTIRE DISCUSSION WAS ON DESIGN AND DENSITY AND BASICALLY FIOII'i'ING TO KEEP ANYTHING PROP; BEING DEVELOPED. SUtE_mber,_1975 Application to Coastal Commission filed. Dccctpbetr 1.975 After cxtensivo hearing with the Coastal Commission, water now is the only factor inasmuch as homeowners had' accepted density and layout, and were instructed by the Coastal Commission that they needed a substantial reason in order to prevent building,. This is when the first water situation occurred. Holstein Company then countered this and asked if they could have specific list: or. compl.atnts to investigate. Coastal Commission said this is the only way to do it and postponed tite meeting. Homeowners were asked to get • • � l t 1. a :I1. 14 LtII Dos LaI October 2S, 1977 Page Three • to the Holstein Comoany any specific complaints. Homeowners stalled and refused to do so, and the. Coastal Commission furnished the Holstein Company with 20 letters that they had received of which 16 referred to general problems in the area and only 4 with specific water damage problem::. The Holstein Company investigated each case And interviewed each homeowner to find out that basically the problems are all local drainage in nature. A copy of all of the letters and results of the investigation are attached. March, 1976 Coastal Commission advises the Holstein Company that they need to do more study of water and drainage situation. April, 1976 Attorneys for Holstein Company hire an independent soils geologist and an independent consulting civil engineer who have never worked for the Holstein Company and have no relationship with the Holstein Company. They prepared extensive soil and water analyses which the Holstein Company paid for, copies of which are attached. The soil and water reports outline in detail that there is no basic problem. Homeowners object to the water and soils reports and then contend that this was unduly biased because Holstein Company paid for the reports. Octobers 1976 . Coastal Commission by state law excludes these two particular sites. December 13, 1976 City denies extension of tract maps contending that there is a severe water problem that should be investigated. December, 1976 The City of Newport Beach has prepared various specifications for future drainage studies that encompass all of the Bluff area of several hundred acres and proposals result in an expenditure of between $20,000 to $50,000 and obviously will produce little or no more additional information than the previous reports that .were prepared by the City and by the engineers that were hired by the Holstein Company. Sinre December, the Holstein Company has asked specifically of the City where and what are the problems existing at the Bluffs; if there is an individual home that has drainage problems, if there is nn area, we would like to have these specifically identified to us. This we have not received and wo have requested it of the homeowners and this we have not received. There is obviously a great deal of concern really does not exist. and buildup of something that • • C� 1 " • • • 0 Mr. Milnu Lostal October 25, 1.9// Page Four Is this new study, that is being requested, to stall or stop the development of these particular sites or is it to solve a problem of the existing; residents? Or, is it to encourage the building of these two particular sites? However, we believe that it is to stall or stop developmentof these sites. If you ask payment from the homeowners for any portion of this study, I doubt very much if you will get $1 because no one who lives in these particular tracts is concerned with the water damage. Let me give you an example. I personally live at 2143 Vista Entrada which is directly across the street from Tract 8682 and there is no residence any closer to these. two sites than my own. Mine is a two story home that drnps down the bluff. I am in the process of remodeling that home and have exposed the soil in many spots. There is no water, and there is no drainage problem. I have checked with my neighbors, and everyone up and down the block, and there: is no specific problem in this area. If this study is for existing homes, then the responsibility for paying it should be the homeowners themselves. He would be glad to pay our proportionate share for our area if it would result in the approval of these two particular. tracts. I doubt very much if 14 additional homes, 7 in two locations, could affect any overall drainage problem. Before we, thcc City, or the: homeowners pay anything, let's try to identify if and where the specific problems exist. Let's determine if it is the loca3 drainage problem caused by overgrowth, weeds, grass, or tree roots. Let's determine if; the cracking and water problems are merely the age of the buildings. Let's not burden ourselves with additional money that is not going to prove anythinj;. Let's have the City send out a questionnaire if the homeowners won't, to the homeowners in the particular area of question, asking what the problems are. And then, let's have one representative of the City, one of the Holstein Company and one of The Irvine Company and one of the homeowners go and look at that problem, and determine if it is serious enough to continue this so called "sham on water problems". These peop3e at the homeowners association, particularly I or 2, have clone an admirable job in stalling and stopping, this area from development, but these two sites that the Holstein Company has invested over $150,000 of it's own money deserves attention. The Irvine Company owns the land and it is designated and designed for development and we should not allow 1 or 2 peoplto continue to make a mockery -of our system because they spend more time at it. Please., let's study the problem and see if we can't bring this matter to a conclusion. 1 would suggest that the Holstein Company, at their expense, prepare a questionnaire to be sent out to each of the homeoullers in the ae:na; Clint the Bluffs Homeowners Association provide us with the name and addresses of: the people involved. 'then, if thew questionnaires are directocl I `_J Mr. HI LIII I)V•.I i I pctobvi 2S, 191/ Pntpc: Five . to a specific persou at the City of Newport Beach, and that we requent cooperation from the Bluffs: homeowners in that they don't get a committee of people knocking on doors trying to,fabriente phoney drainage problems in order to continue the stalling, your consideration will be greatly appreciated in bringing the matter to a conclusion. Thaikyou very much. truly youra, r �2 !� Gcorpn 1. }ioletein, zii Pres{tl nt enclosures M • 0 �� S fall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 41, N/Y� 01/ 0 Oe�p 0,i OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ZtiF�po November 15, 1977 g °q��Fq�y ® Z n ATI TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: GROUND WATER STUDY IN THE BLUFFS AREA Pursuant to the Council directive of November 14th, please prepare a report for the December 12th Council meeting covering the following items: -- 1. Define what the City considers to be the ground water problem in the Bluffs area and give expert data where pos- sible. 2. Define legal liability to resolve the problem of the City, The Irvine Company, the Homeowners' Association, and Holstein Industries. 3. Approach The Irvine Company to determine if they will cooperate with the City and/or the developer in financing the James M. Montgomery Proposal No. 1. If you have questions, please contact me. CC: City Attorney Public Works Director ROB L �WNN + • ROUGH DRAFT • BLUFFS GROUNDWATER: Analysis of Existing Conditions Staff has concluded that groundwater conditions exist which -could lead to serious problems, although little evidence is visible at this time. This opinion is based upon information -supplied in the April 1976 report by Evans, Goffman and McCormick for the areas currently proposed for development, observations made around the perimeter of the Bluffs area, and complaints by residents over a period of years. No record of recent complaints from area residents has been observed. This is in contrast to numerous complaints particularly during the rainy season prior to 1976. Unfortunately, no complaint records were kept during that time period so verification is only by individual memories. The drop in the number of complaints can be explained by the concurrent consideration of development for these tracts as well as the drought conditions and attention to landscape irrigation. The minimal amounts of rainfall would tend to reduce the amount of water penetrating into the ground, as would the reported 20% reduction in the amounts of irrigation water used for landscaping. Contribution to the groundwater system has not been eliminated however. Examination of the bluff perimeter the week of November 21, 1977, revealednumerous springs, seeps and damp areas along the perimeter slopes of the tract (see attached sketch). In addition, groundwater was observed during soils exploration and testing for proposed Tract 8681 by Evans, Goffman, and McCormick. No free groundwater was observed for Tract 8682 during the same investigation, possibly due to a different type of bedrock. A recent report prepared for a church site by Pacific Soils Engineering dated June, 1977 located on Mar Vista revealed groundwater contained in bedrock fractures below the contact between the terrace materials. Reports recently submitted by Soils International, the soils and geology consultant involved with the original development and prepared over an interval between 1965 to 1971, indicates that at least some of the problems occurring subsequent to development required remedial subdrain installation. All of the above data lead staff to conclude that additional information and study is required to fully comprehend, anticipate, and remedy potential problems due to groundwater flow. A number of bluff failures in Newport Bay have occurred in recent years due almost solely to groundwater conditions, some of which have endangered public improvements. Whether future problems will be observed in homes within the development is only a guess without additional study. CITY OF NEWPORT BEAPH COUNCILMEN \1\ 1oA<'or oniI nniA �November 14. 1977 MINUTES MM Beach has offered to fund the purchase of sound equipment for the Newport Community Theater in Ensign Park for a maximum amount of $2,500.00 and asking that the Council notify the Guild in writing of its acceptance of the fund. Motion The Mayor was directed to write a letter accepting Ayes x x x x x x the proposed donation by the Musical Theater Guild. 8. A report was presented from the Police Department Bicycle regarding legislation regulating motorized Regs bicycles (Mopeds). (134) Motion x The proposed letters from the Mayor to Senator Ayes x x x x x er and Assemblyman Cordova asking that they Noes x x cr the introduction of legislation to bring uity to Moped regulations were approved; and Rion No. 9216,requesting the Orange County R-9216 DLeague of California Cities to support Se elation regulating motorized bicycles \ned (), s adopted. 9. Tuest f assignment of the contract for oil Armstrong pion from rmstrong Petroleum Corporation to Petroleum Motion x Pship Prop ties Company and Petro -Lewis (122) Ayes x x x x x x x Ction was po to November 28, 1977. 10. A report was presenomthe City Manager Council regarding an amendmCouncil Policy L-2 Policy dealing with closurrb cuts and abandoned (430F) driveway approaches Motion x Amended Council Pol2, " iveway Approaches" Ayes x x x x x x x was approved. 11. A report was presenom the Tr fic Affairs \ad Street Committee regardingemoval of p ing at the Ends Channel Road Street(2817) Motion x The staff was direco take the follow g Ayes x x x x x x x steps: (a) Coordinatpreparations of a pla for removpavement and installati nof sand aChannel Road Street end. (b) Prepare necessary Environmental Docu- ments for the project. (c) Apply for Coastal Zone Permit. (d) Prepare the necessary budget amendments to construct the project. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from the Council table due to a possible conflict of interest in con- nection with the next item. 12. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department regarding a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach, Holstein Industries and the Bluffs Homeowners' Association to authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in ,.the_Bluffs Eastbluff Drainage (2336) area. Volume 31 - Page 290 TY OF NEWPORT BiCH COUNCILMEN MINUTES .\yoc�\�\Qo�� F\' N November 14 1977 INDEX ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x John Stuart addressed the Council and stated that the Bluffs Homeowners' Association did not contem- plate contributing funding for the groundwater study, and suggested that The Irvine Company might be willing to participate. Grading Engineer James Evans gave a brief staff report. James Dooley, representing Holstein Company, addressed the Council and recommended that the John Mann study be accepted by the City. Mr. Dooley was granted three additional minutes for his presentation. The subject was postponed to December 12, 1977. �- —�- Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council table. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were approved by one motion Ayes x x x x x x x affirming the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. The following resolutions were adopted: (a) Resolution No. 9217 designating intersection Stop Signs at which vehicles ate required to stop and R-9217 directing the Traffic Engineer to erect (8F) necessary stop signs (Monrovia and 16 Street). (A report from the Public orks Department) (b) Resolution No. 9218 approving a parcel map Resub 557 for Resubdivision No. 557 a accepting the R-9218 offer of dedication of a cycle and pedes- (2880) trian easement and the hicular access rights to Jamboree Bo evard. (A report from the Public Works D ector) (c) Resolution No. 19 setting forth the total CEQCAC membership o the Environmental Quality R-9219 Control Ci zens Advisory Committed, together (1058) with cer in procedural rules; and rescinding Resol on No. 8656, (Attached) 2. The fo owing communications were referred as Judi ted: To staff for reply, a letter from the Newport Greenville Shores Community Association requesting help Banning from all agencies that would be involved in Channel the dredging of the Greenville -Banning (148) Channel, and the legal status of the portion needing dredging. (Copies mailed to Council) (b) To staff for reply, a letter from the Traffic Mariners Church concerning the ingress and Complaints (1154P) Volume 31 - Page 291 City Council Meeting November 14, 1977 Agenda Item No. G-1Z • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 8, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Alternative -Proposals for Groundwat Request to authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs in connection with the preparation of an updated Environmental Impact Report, and approval of the cost allocation. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach, Holstein Industries, and the Bluffs Homeowners Association Suggested Action If desired, authorize a study of the groundwater conditions in the Bluffs area to be performed by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., per their Proposal #1, dated August 5, 1977; and specifically allocate the cost of the study; OR , Authorize the study of groundwater conditions related only to Tracts 8681 and 8682, to be performed by John Mann as part of the update of the Environmental Impact Report on the subject project. Background Plans for the development of Tracts No. 8681 and 8682 (see location map attached) were initially submitted to the City in May 1973, and •subsequently approved by the City Council along with the certifica- tion of the Environmental Impact Report on May 27, 1975, following numerous hearings at both the Council and Planning Commission levels. On December 13, 1976, the Council denied a request to extend Use Permits No. 1730, 1731 and the Tentative Tract Maps No. 8681 and 8682, primarily because of the concerns raised regarding the lack of information to fully analyze the groundwater conditions present in the area. At the time the request was made for the extension of the use permits and tentative maps, the applicant (IDH, a Joint Venture, Costa Mesa) and the City staff recommended the following definition of the groundwater studies to be performed in response to the concerns of the Commission and the homeowners' association. "The City shall require, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and prior to the approval of landscaping plans and landscaping watering systems, groundwater studies which will determine the major sources of subsurface waters, the general direction of groundwater movement, the probable destination of under- ground velocity aofrundergroundawaters anestimte themovement. The lharmful effects of such water movement shall be analyzed and recommendations shall be made to alleviate problems which are now in existence and which could be caused by the proposed development. The City shall engage the consultants necessary to perform the tasks and determine the appropriate share of the costs to be paid by the developer." TO: City Council - 2. This clarification was intended to establish the City's intent in requiring the necessary studies. It is the applicant's intention at this point to prepare materials and file the necessary applications to reactivate the proposed project. In so doing, it has been determined that it is necessary to update the certified EIR and include further information regard- ing groundwater conditions. In view of the previous discussions on this subject, and given that the City must contract with the consultant to prepare the necessary documentation, the staff initiated a request for proposals to per- form a variety of groundwater studies in connection with the use Apermit and tentative saan were ugust fromseveralconultntsandsubsequentlysevaluatedebyen the staff. Four alternatives were selected, discussed with the appli- cant, and forwarded to the Bluffs Homeowners' Association for review and comment. These included the following: 1. James M. Montgomery, Proposal #1 : A complete study of the groundwater conditions over the entire Bluffs Area. Cost: Approx. $24,000 2. James M. Montgomery, Proposal N2: An intercept is design study to remedy existing problems in con- junction with data generated in Proposal Al. This study includes a future groundwater condition monitoring system. Cost: Approx. $11*000 3. Leighton & Associates: An intercept design study to remedy existing problems in the Bluffs Area. The monitoring capability is not included in this proposal. Cost: Approx. $21,500 4. A study limited to groundwater conditions in the subject parcels, sufficient for the purposes of inclusion in an Environmental Impact heport and complete enough to determine environmental find- ings for the subject project. Cost: Approx. $4,000 • Alternatives and Recommendations Further analysis of each of these proposals is included in the attachment to this report, as well as the staff's evaluation of the benefits of each of the studies. To date the Bluffs Homeowners Association has not officially indicated to the staff any prefer- ence for selection of the study consultant or the type of study to be performed. There also has been no indication of a willingness to share the costs, although the information derived from the studies would be of benefit to the City and the Homeowners' Association as well as satisfying the environmentalimpact analysis requirements of the subject project. The applicant has forwarded a written response, which is attached to this staff report, stating the position of Holstein Industries on this matter. It is the staff's recommendation that the City Council authorize the groundwater study to be performed by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., and that the study include Proposal #1. This pro- posal thewill Bluffsprovide Area,aandcomplete willassessment the intentgroundwater studyconditions recommended in December 1976. The information should be sufficient to make an environmental determination on the project. Three alter- native cost allocations to accomplish the study are suggested for TO: City Council - 3. • Council consideration as follows: 1. Equal cost sharing among the City, the Homeowners' Association and Holstein Industries ($8000 each). 2. Equal share between the Homeowners' Association and Holstein Industries ($12,000 each). 3. Equal share between the City and Holstein Industries ($12,000 each). In the event that either the City or the Homeowners' Association fail to participate, then the staff recommendation would be to proceed with Study #4 to be accomplished by John Mann,under contract to the City, which would be a study of groundwater conditions limited to the subject parcels. The information would be sufficient for the groundwater section of the Environmental Impact Report update, and this study would constitute the minimum requirements for proceeding with the application for the proposed project. The cost of the study ($4000) would be paid by the applicant through the normal administrative procedures of Environmental Impact Report preparation. 0 Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By ��— BE ERL WO D Environmental Coordinator BDW/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1 Location Map 2 Staff Report for last Council action - 12/13/76 3 Memo from Grading Engineer - 6/1/77 4 Request for Proposals - 6/9/77 5 Staff Evaluations of Study Proposals - 9/8/77, 9/27/77 6 Letter from Holstein Industries - 10/25/77 • y -�--may --- Y.---"----— — — Gov IA csol - � ;, `�� +� •, ; 11 �. ,� n � . /ati 1 � r 3-r; ,•.' •.� !fir.. 13 qu `• T 1 S ll� \ is ':e»-�(: ! 5-0 '.•.'� .d •\\ � —, �, E�-NAa� °c , O;,Y, Vim'. + 5 \6 •y OR/UE ^ �m pp ,I•. gUA,YA_ ST ' \Sj•' ' 6 n '• F ��•!` ACKTHORN"- L CASSiA VBi---_—AI S;, d 8� / /d �c- BUC—f�EY�j• 0 � ---- g y3T � oo �A EPhd va11d=T� �`J r/r �o Y/,F�`'_� -- -- ,ys> \ \✓ f / ZN aUil r t i • City of Newport Beach 6.41LIkemp ►LPIMMIN4 OI YI SION (�•l0•�3' '�m 80 SCALE IN FEET 01 ,�- • City Council Mee• g December 13, 1976 Agenda Item No. G-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 8, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Use Permit No 1730 (Extension) Request to permit the construction of seven attached single-family dwellings with related parking and landscape areas. AND Tentative Map Tract No. 8682 (Extension) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres into seven numbered lots for attached single-family residential develop- ment and one numbered lot to be developed as a land- scape area, private driveways and guest parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 89, Tract 5878, located at 2122 Vista Entrada, westerly of Vista del Oro and easterly of Vista Entrada in "The Bluffs." ZONE: R-4-B-2 PRO APPLICANT: IDH, a Joint Venture, Costa Mesa OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., Huntington Beach SUBJECT: Use Permit No 1737 (Extension) Request to permit the construction of seven attached single-family dwellings with related parking and landscape areas. AND Tentative Map Tract No. 8581 (Extension) Request to subdivide 1.75 acres into seven numbered lots for attached single-family residential develop- ment and one numbered lot to be developed as a land- scape area, private driveways and guest parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 125, Tract 5435, located at 1976 Vista Caudal, southwesterly of Vista del Oro and northeasterly of Vista Caudal in "The Bluffs." ZONE: R-4-B-2 PRO APPLICANT: IDH, a Joint Venture, Costa Mesa OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., Huntington Beach CJ i TO: City Council - 2. applications •This is a request to extend the approval of four applications which propose to subdivide and develop two sites in the Bluffs which were formerly planned and designated for the construction of high-rise residential structures. The applications as approved by the Plan- ning Commission and City Council would allow the construction of a total of fourteen dwelling units at a density and of a size, height, bedroom count, and architectural design in harmony with immediately surrounding dwellings. Plans for the development of these sites were initially submitted to the City in May, 1973, and subsequently approved by the City Council along with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report on May 27, 1975, following numerous hearings at both the Council and Commission levels. An Approval in Concept was issued on August 25•, 1975, and a permit was subsequently requested from the Regional Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission denied the application on January 5, 1976. A second Approval in Concept was issued by the City on June 21, 1976. However, inasmuch as the sites will no longer be within the permit boundary of the Coastal Zone after December 31st of this year, the applicant has decided not to pursue •the matter further with the Coastal Commission. City approvals will expire on November 27th (i.e., eighteen months following the last City Council action) unless the applicant's request for an extension is approved. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their meet- ing of October 21, 1976. At that time there was considerable discus- sion as to whether this request should be considered as a discussion item or set for public hearing. The Commission subsequently deter- mined that they would start out by considering this matter a•s a discussion item, and the staff was directed to notify the Community Association and bring back the complete background materials on November 4, 1976. Procedures related to Planned Residential Develop- ments are set forth under Chapter 20.51 of the Municipal Code. Ap- plicable sections pertaining to tentative and final subdivision maps are located under Chapters 19.12 and 19.16. Suggested Action If desired, approve the extension of Use Permits 1730 and 1731 and the Tentative Maps of Tracts 8682 and 8681 for a period of not to • exceed two years (November 27, 1978), with the findings and subject to the conditions imposed by the City Council on May 27, 1975 or if desired, deny the request. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of November 4, 1976, the Planning Commission voted (5 Ayes, 1 No and 1 Absent) to recommend to the City Council that the request for the extension of Use Permit No. 1730 and No. 1731 and the Tentative Maps of Tracts No. 8682 and 8681 be denied. At the time this matter was before the Commission, there was discus, sion regarding the Commission's recent recommendation and subsequent adoption by the City Council of an amendment which would prohibit the extension of use permits beyond the initial approval period. In addition, there was considerable discussion regarding new soils and geology reports which had been prepared subsequent to the approvals granted by the City in May of 1975. Specifically there was a concern that some of the conditions of approval pertaining to drainage, ground water, seepage, soil erosion, etc. were not as explicit as they should be and needed clarification. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes from the meeting of November 4, 1976 is attached. TO' City Council - 3, Since the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1976, the staff has met with the applicant and developed language, in response to the concerns of the Commission and the homeowners' association, which could be incorporated into the minutes of the City Council's consideration of this matter and would establish the City's intent in requiring the necessary studies without modifying any of the existing conditions of approval, The sug- gested language is as follows: "The City shall require, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and prior to the approval of landscaping plans and landscaping watering systems, ground water studies which will determine the major sources of subsurface waters, the general direction of ground water movement, the probable destination of underground waters and estimate the quantity, quality and velocity of underground water movement. The harmful effects of such water movement shall be analyzed and recommendations shall be made to allevi- ate problems which are now in existence and which could be caused by the proposed development. The City shall engage the consultants necessary to perform the tasks and determine the appropriate share of the costs to be paid by the developer." If the City Council concurs with this suggestion, it would be the Intent of the Department of Community Development to retain the services of Dr. John Mann to perform the necessary studies, Dr. Mann has already submitted a proposal to the City with an estimated cost of $4900.00. If the City Council grants the extensions as requested by the applicant, it would be the intent of the Department to require the applicant to share in the cost of the studies. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. MOGAN, Director By ER - 1 is6 Ass stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for Council Only: 1) Vicinity Maps 2) Excerpt of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1976 3) Planning Commission staff report dated October 26, 1976, with attachments. 0 `j i rEW P • Department of Community Development i/ 1 i'U 16T�P DATE: June 1, 1977 TO: Director FROM: Grading Engineer SUBJECT: Ground water studies required for Tract 8681-8682, Holstein Industries The ground water problems in the Bluffs development resolve themselves into two separate elements. The first and apparently most sensitive is that of ground water seepage into garage and home areas. The second and of greater concern to Public Works as well as to individuals living along the perimeter of the Bluffs is that of long term stability of the escarpment. The first problem is dealt with in the Evans, Goffman Report. This problem is and should be one considered as part of construction development. The recommendations dealing with this aspect are standard solutions generally provided by the soil engineering profession. One improvement,on these standard recommendations is possible and I think, should be required in construction of the proposed buildings. The subdrains around the perimeter of the building should be constructed with designed filters for the soil. This process is not generally used due to the expense, but is a far more permanent solution than -the general practice. Filter fabric could be used instead of a graded soil filter material. This extra design should only be required on those lots where the bedrock -terrace contact is exposed or is near ground surface. Drainage behind retaining walls should be required as a minimum for all units. The second problem is a larger scale problem dealing with the source(s), and movement of ground. water in the Eastbluff area. The source(s) of ground water in the North Bluff area was only partially dealt with in the John Mann Study since the approach was to determine how much water was being placed on the ground in the common areas exceeding the plant requirements. Contributions from outside the North Bluff areas were not considered as part of the study nor were alterna- tive directions of flow other than the known problem area along the bluff edge considered. These factors should be considered as part of any new study on Eastbluff. These considerations require that the following scope of work be used: PHASE I 1). Review all pertinent soil and geologic data in the City's files. 2). Evaluate these data for pertinence to the proposed project. 3). Provide recommendations to the City if additional data are required which are not included in the City's files. 0 4' • Memo: To: Director re: Ground water studies for Tract 8681-8682 June 1977 2 Page 2 PHASE II A). Determine whether, flows are donfined only to the bedrock -terrace interface and if not, provide supporting information. 5). Provide a map showing the generalized configuration of the terrace -bedrock contact surface. 6). Determine whether areas outside the Eastbluffs development contribute ground water to the area. 7). Determine existing flow direction(s) of subsurface waters. 8). Compare bedrock elevation data to ground surface elevations to delineate potential problem areas from ground water buildup. 9). Provide recommendations for location and installation of permanent monitoring devices. 10). Summarize limitations of the study. 11). Provide conclusions regarding the source, movement, and ultimate destination of ground water in the area. It would seem prudent to request proposals from other well qualified firms. These include: Glen Brown of LeRoy Crandall & Associates, and James Montgomery 6 Associates. This procedure may lead to a better proposal since several pro- posals could be compared on their merits. A study similar to the earlier John Mann investigation is not recommended at this time. The basis for this is that the earlier study had limitations which may be offset by the scope of work described above, and this scope of work will include a secondary evaluation of the earlier work to apply this to a different area. JIM EVANS JE:rw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T CALIFORNIA G1pp IRo City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd, Area Code 714 June 9, 1977 673-2110 Gentlemen: The City of Newport Beach invites your proposal for the preparation of a report on groundwater conditions in "The Bluffs." (See attached map.) This request is being solicited in response to the plans of Holstein Industries to subdivide two sites within the area for single family residential development. These sites are shown on the attached map and designated as Tracts 8681 and 8682. Use permits, tentative . subdivision maps and an environmental impact report have previously been approved by the City. However, these approvals have since expired. The new proposal is identical to the ,previously approved request, however, in this case, the City is desirous of obtaining additional information as to the source and movement of.ground water thru the sites and the surrounding area. A general scope of work to be performed is outlined below: PHASE I 1. Review all pertinent soil and geologic data in the City's files. 2. Evaluate the data in relation to the proposed project. 3. Provide recommendations to the City if additional data are required which are not included in the City's files. PHASE II 4. Determine whether flows are confined only to the bedrock -terrace interface and if not, provide supporting information. 5. Provide a map showing the generalized configuration of the terrace -bedrock contact surface. 6. Determine whether areas outside the Bluffs development contribute ground water to the area. 7. Determine existing flow direction(s) of subsurface waters. C] 60 0 Proposal in connection with ground water condition in "The Bluffs." Page 2. 8. Compare bedrock elevation data to ground surface elevations to delineate potential problem areas from ground water buildup. 9. Provide recommendations for location and installation of permanent monitoring devices. 10. Summarize limitations of the study. 11. Provide conclusions regarding the source, movement, and ultimate destination of ground water in the area. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this project, we would appreciate hearing from you by Your proposal should list the services you will provide. Your fees should be based on your standard hourly charges with a stipulated maximum fee. Please include in the proposal the name and qualifications of the geologist(s) who will be performing the studies. You should familiarize yourself with the types of information already available prior to submitting a proposal, Please contact Jim Evans, City Grading Engineer, or myself if you need any additional informa- tion or have any further questions. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By James D. Hewickero Assistant Director - Planning JDH/sh i 0 q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 640-2211 September 8, 1977 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES -THE BLUFFS GROUND WATER PROBLEMS SUBJECT: STAFF EVALUATION OF STUDY PROPOSALS Proposals for two different types of studies related to ground water problems of the Bluffs development in the City of Newport Beach. The first request for proposal consisted of only a ground water study of the Bluffs area; the second consisted of a review of the ground water problem locations, combined with design of an interceptor drain system to intercept problem ground water, and dispose of it in a manner to eliminate existing problems. The two studies were to have been mutually independent so that the City could authorize one or the other studies to be conducted but not both. i Summarized below is the staff's evaluation of each proposal and a recommendation for the choice of consultant for each type of study. A. Ground water study: Products to be supplied by consultant: bedrock surface contour map, ground water contour map, summary of offsite and onsite contributions of ground water. 1) LeRoy Crandall & Associates: 50 exploratory drill holes, 15 observation wells, total cost $53,000 to $63,000. The proposal includes a very complete analysis of the problem and.a very thorough exploration program. Relies extensively on drilling to determine bedrock surface and ground water flow. 2) John Mann: No observation wells or exploratory,drill holes, $4,000. It is staff's opinion that this estimate cannot provide the required exploration and evaluation needed to prepare the specified maps. 3) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.: 10 exploratory drill'holes converted to observation wells, at least one pumping test, $24,000. The mix of field mapping and drill holes to supplement this information appears to be adequate to define the properties of the ground water flow. The price is reasonable and con- sistent with good engineering practices. Recommendation: James M. Montgomery City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 to • • Memo Staff evaluation of study proposals. Page 2 Design of system to intercept and divert ground water from problem areas: Products to be supplied by consultant: (a) evaluation of the entire Bluffs development for locations of ground water problems, (b) sufficient subsurface information for general depths of drain installation, (c) proposed outlet points for diversion of subsurface water, and (d) criteria for design of system. 1) LeRoy Crandall & Associates Divided into three phases, a) problem assessment, b) exploration Including 50 drill holes, and c) detailed design of drain system and installation of monitoring. Cost: $58,000 to $63,000. The proposal, as was the geohyrologic study, is well thought out and very thorough and includes all necessary elements to satisfactorily complete the work. 2) Geotechnical Consultants: No specified number of drill holes but detailed methods outlined for progress and completion of work. Cost: $38,000 to $59,000. This proposal contains a sufficiently detailed methodology to allow our approval of the character of the work to be performed. Our opinion is that the requirements of the R.P.P. can be met with the proposed methods and cost. 3) Leighton & Associates: Combination mapping with 20-25 drill holes combined with geophysical exploration. Cost: $21,500. The methods outlined, and the number of drill holes used can provide the required information. 4) James M. Montgomery: No drilling. Cost $11,000 It is our opinion that satisfactory design cannot be performed for this cost. 5) W.A. Wahler: Use of geophysical exploration and drilling. Extensive Phase I work (problem assessment) Cost: $37,600 to $41,941. The proposal is complete and the method proposed can accomplish the required work. Recommendation: Although the Leighton proposal appears to be slightly low, the work could be accomplished with the method proposed. Cost is very reasonable. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION Although the Montgomery proposal appears to be tow for the Interceptor Design proposal, the combined cost of this design and the geohydrologic work would be competative with most of the other estimates for one or the other packages. Consideration should be given to this type of combination. • is : \\ • • Department of Community Development C��IFORN`' DATE: September 27, 1977 TO: Beverly Wood FROM: James Evans SUBJECT: Further evaluation of various options concerning groundwater studies in the Bluffs. REFERENCE: Tract #8681 & 8682 proposals to develop. Four options for study of groundwater conditions in the Bluffs development can be considered. These options involve: 1. A cursory study which is limited only to the material required to provide information for the affect on groundwater by these two proposed developments. Some necessary background information and a requirement for mitigation measures has been provided by the report authored by Evans, Goffman & McCormick. The sole identifiable beneficiary of this type of study would be the future owners of dwellings in the proposed developments. The proposed drain improvements would not apparently solve any problems which currently exist in the remainder of the Bluffs development except in a localized area adjacent which may share a common source of nuisance groundwater with the proposed development. 2. A complete study of groundwater conditions in the Bluffs area. This study would provide background material which would be necessary for evaluating the existing problems, and a basis for monitoring possible future changes In the volume and direction of flow of groundwater in the entire Bluffs development. It would not provide a drainage system design or would it provide adequate criteria for design of such a system. The beneficiary of this type of study would logically be the entire Bluffs community and, to some extent, the city since the background information would allow an evaluation of potential situations similar to those which occured in the north Bluffs area. The developer would benefit only as an owner of a parcel of land within the development. 3. A subdrain system design study to remedy known problems from nuisance groundwater. This type of study would be limited to evaluation of known problems in dwellings in the Bluffs development and the necessary field and office analysis to develop a drain to intercept and divert groundwater which is now resulting in the problems. This study would provide only the preliminary design of the system and would not put any hardware into the ground. It would not provide information or capability for evaluating or monitoring future groundwater conditions. Page 2 September 27, 1977 SUBJECT: Further evaluation of various options concerning groundwater studies in the Bluffs. The beneficiaries of this study would appear to be only those homeowners currently experiencing problems from groundwater flow. The proposed development will probably have to install at least part of the drain system which their consultant has recommended, and therefore should not be considered the prime beneficiary of the system. if subsurface flow were to increase in the future, the system may not intercept all of the potentially damaging water. 4. The fourth option is a combination of options 2 & 3, where both studies are conducted and the system designed based on this information. This option would not provide the necessary constructed facilities but would provide the necessary monitoring system to evaluate future changes in groundwater flow, and sufficient preliminary criteria to add to a system if it were to become necessary. The beneficiaries of such a combination would include the entire Bluffs community, the future occupants of the proposed development, and to some extent, the city, since the groundwater effects on existing and/or proposed public improvement could be evaluated. 9w • 11 o October 25, 1977 Mr. Milan Dostal, Mayor City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: City Council Action on December 13, 1976 on Tract 8681 and Tract 8682; Use Permits #1730 and #1731 Dear Mr. Mayor: We have been asked by the City staff of the Community Development Denartment, Newport Beach Planning Commission, in collaboration with the Bluff Homeowners Association on our willingness to share in the expense of the completion of a ground water report in the Bluffs development area of Eastbluff. I would like to briefly review the history of the Holstein Company's development in the Bluffs and specifically, the three "high rise" sites designated as Tracts 8660, 8681 and 8682. In my review of the background of these particular sites, I will briefly comment and make emphasis on the so called "ground water complaints". The purpose of this background information is to refresh the memory of each Council member with the information and history of the three (3) projects and to point out that the latest so called "ground water problem" is a further attempt by the handful of homeowners who are seeking, to discourage any further develop- ment whatsoever and that there really is not a potential "ground water. problem". 1966-Tracts 8680, 8681 and 8682 These specific tentative tracts were at the time one lot in each of Tracts 5435, 5878 and 6230. Each was designated as a 60 unit high rise locat:i.on . totalling, 180 units. These were approved by the City Council subject to certain conditions. Septembers 1971 Agreement reached between The Irvine Company, the holstein Company and the Bluff homeowners Association as to the development of the sites into high rise units. 170 FAST SEVENTEEPIT{1 STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 • (AREA 714) 642-9660 OR 548.5549 0 14 Mr. Milan Dostal October 25, 1977 Page Two 3972 The City of Newport Beach inacted a height limit, Ordinance .11454 restrict- ing the sites to loser density. Maw* 11, 1973 Three sites are filed with tentative tract mans containing 40 units, then removed from the agenda for revision. June 12, 1974 Three sites are filed frith tentative tract maps containing 40 units, then removed from the agenda for final EIR. December 6, 1974 Three sites are refiled with tentative tract maps with 24 units and supporting, EIR. January 21, 3975 EIR accepted by the City Staff of Newport Beach on the three sites. May 1, 1975 Planning Commission first public hearing all on throe subject sites, May 27,_ 1975 The third site (trade remnant) removed. (Removed from application so that only Tracts 8681 and 8682 are submitted with 17 units to the City Council). An extensive public hearing was held; Holstein Company accepts proposed map which calls for different floor plans and arrangements totalling 14 units, or 7 units on each site. Council asks homeovners if they approve it and they said that they did, subject to Coastal Commission approval. PLEASE NOTE THAT ON ALL OF THE ABOVE 11EARIMS, NO 61ATER PROBLEM, WAS PRESI4NTED WHATSOEVER. THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION VAS ON DESIGN AND DENSITY AND BASICALLY PIC11TINC TO KEEP ANYTHING FROM BEING DEVELOPED. September, 1975 Application to Coastal Commission filed. Decamber, 1975 After extensive hearinss with the Coastal Commission, v+ater not; is the only factor inasmuch as homemmmsers hnd'accepted density and layout, and were instructed by the Coastal Commission that they needed a substantial reason in order to prevent building. This is when the first water situation occurred. Holstein Company then countered this and asked if they coulcl have specific list of, complaints to investigate, Coastal Commission said this is the only way to do it and postuoucd the meeting, Homeowners ware asked to get f • I13'. Milnii DosLal. October. 25, 1977 Page Three 'to the Holstein Company any specific complaints. Homeowners stalled and refused to do so, and the Coastal Commission furnished the holstein Company with 20 letters that they had received of which 16 referred to general problems in the area and only h with specific water damage problems. The Holstein Company investigated each case end interviewed each homeowner to. find out that basically the problems are all local drainage in nature. A copy of all of the letters and results of the investigation are attached. March, 1976 Coastal Commission advises the Holstein Company that they need to do more study of water and drainage situation. April, 1976 Attorneys for Holstein Company hire an independent soils geologist and an independent consulting civil engineer who have never worked for the Holstein Company and have no relationship with the Holstein Company. They prepared extensive soil and water analyses which the Holstein Company paid for, copies of which are attached. The soil and water reports outline in detail that there is no basic problem. Homeowners object to the water and soils reports and then contend that this was unduly biased because Holstein Company paid for the reports. October, 1976 Coastal Commission by state law excludes these two particular sites. December 13, 1976 City denies extension of tract maps contending that there is a severe water problem that should be investigated. December, 1976 The City of Newport Beach has prepared various specifications for future drainage studies that encompass all of the Bluff area of.several hundred acres and proposals result in an expenditure of between $20,000 to *50,000 and obviously will produce little or no more additional information than the previous reports that.were prepared by the City and by the engineers that were hired by the Holstein Company. Since December, the Holstein Company has asked specifically of. the City where and what are the problems existing at the Bluffs; if there is an individual home that has drainage problems; if there is an area, we would like to have these specifically identified to us. This we have not received and we have requested it of the homeowners and this we have not received. There,. is obviously a great deal of concern and buildup of something that really does not exist. ib Mr. Milan Dostal October 25, 197/ Page Your Is this new study, that is being requested, to stall or stop the duvelopment of these particular sites or is it to solve a problem of the existinv residents? Or, is it to encourage the building of these two particular sites? However, we believe that it is to stall or stop development of these sites. If you ask payment from the homeowners for any portion of this study, I doubt very much if you will get $1 because no one who lives in these particular tracts is concerned with the water damage. Let me give you an example. I personally live at 2143 Vista Entrada which is directly across the street from Tract 8682 and there is no residence any closer to these two sites than my own. Mine is a two story home that drnps down the bluff. I am in tlo process of remodelin; that home and have exposed the soil in many spots. There is no water, and there is no drainage problem. I have checked with my neighbors, and everyone up and down the block, and there is no specific problem in this area. • If this study is for existing homes, then the responsibility for paying it should be the homeowners themselves. Re would be glad to pay our proportionate share for our area if it would result in the approval of these two particular tracts. I doubt very much if 14 additional homes, 7 in two locations, 40 could affect any overall drainage problem. Before we, the City, or the homeowners pay anything, Let's try to identify if and where the specific problems exist. Let's determine if it is the local drainage problem caused by overgrowth, needs, grass, or tree roots. Let o determine if the cracking and water problems are merely the age of the buildings. Let's not burden ourselves with additional money that is not going, to prove anything. Let's have the City send out a questionnaire if the homeowners won't, to the homeowners in the particular area of question, asking what the problems are. And then, let's have one representative of the City, one of the Holstein Company and one of The Irvine Company and one of the homeowners go and look at that problem, and determine if it is serious enough to continue this so called "sham on water problems". These people at the homeowners association, particularly 1 or 20 line done an admiralale ;Job in stalling and stopping, this area from development, but these two sites that the Holstein Company has invested over $150,000 of it's otin money deserves attention. The Irvine Company owns the land and it is designated and designed for development and we should not allow 1 or 2 people to continue to make a mockery of our system because they spend more time at it. klease, let's study the problem and see if we can't bring this matter to a conclusion. I would suggest that the Holstein Company, at their expense, prepare n questionnaire to be sent out to each of the homeotwnteru in the area; that the Bluffs Homeowners Association provide us with the name and addresses of the people involved. Then, if the-.,,- questionnaires are directed 0 • 0 0 Mr. H•i Lan bostn1 October 25, 1977 Page Five to a specific person at the City of Newport Beach, and that we request cooperatlon from the Bluffs homeowners in that they don't get a committee of people; knocking on doors trying to fabricate phoney drainage problems in order to continue the stalling, your consideration will be greatly appreciated in bringing the matter to a conclusion. Tha4you very much. e /r truly yours, . Holsfein, III t enclosures 0 46 �gW PpRT ' p� @m U T Department• of Community c94FonN�P DATE: September 27, 1977 T0: Beverly Wood FROM: James Evans Development SUBJECT: Further evaluation of various options concerning groundwater studies in the Bluffs. REFERENCE: Tract #8681 & 8682 proposals to develop. Four options for study of groundwater conditions in the Bluffs development can be considered. These options involve: 1. A cursory study•which is limited only to the material required to provide information for the affect on groundwater by these two proposed developments. Some necessary background information and a requirement for mitigation measures has been provided by the report authored by Evans, Goffman & McCormick. The sole identifiable beneficiary of this type of study would be the future owners of dwellings in the proposed developments. The proposed drain improvements would not•apparently solve any problems which currently exist in the remainder of the Bluffs development except in a localized area adjacent which may share a common source of nuisance groundwater with the proposed development. 2. A complete study of groundwater conditions in the Bluffs area. This study would provide background material which would be necessary for evaluating• the existing problems, and a basis for monitoring possible future changes in the volume and direction of flow of groundwater in the entire Bluffs development. It would not provide a drainage system design or would it provide adequate criteria for design of such a system. The beneficiary of this type of study would logically be the entire Bluffs community and, -to some extent, the city since the background information would allow an evaluation of potential situations similar.to those which occured in the north Bluffs area. The developer would benefit only as an owner of a parcel of land within the development. 3. A subdrain system design study to remedy known problems from nuisance groundwater. This type of study would be limited to evaluation of known problems in dwellings in the Bluffs development and the necessary field and office analysis to develop a drain to intercept and divert groundwater which is now resulting in the problems. This study would provide only the preliminary design of the system and would not put any hardware into the ground. It would not provide information or capability for evaluating or monitoring future groundwater conditions. 46 Page 2 September 27, 1977 SUBJECT: Further evaluation of various options concerning groundwater studies in the Bluffs. The beneficiaries of this study would appear to be only those homeowners currently experiencing problems from groundwater flow. The proposed development will probably have to install at least part of the drain system which their consultant has recommended, and therefore should not be considered the prime beneficiary of the system. If subsurface flow were to increase in the future, the system may not intercept all of the potentially damaging water. The fourth option is a combination of options 2 & 3, where both studies are conducted and the system designed based on this information. This option would not provide the necessary constructed facilities but would provide the necessary monitoring system to evaluate future changes in• groundwater flow, and sufficient preliminary criteria to add to a system if it were to become necessary. The beneficiaries of such a combination would include the entire Bluffs community, the future occupants of the proposed development, and to some extent, the city, since the groundwater effects on existing and/or proposed public improvement could be evaluated. Jw � SEW PORT • • e� Department, of Community Development u i �CI FORN`P DATE: September 15, 1977 TO: Beverly Wood, Environmental Coordinator FROM: Engineering Geologist SUBJECT: Discussion of items with consultants concerning the Bluffs proposals. Karl Wiebe of James M. Montgomery & Associates and Rich. Ling of Leighton & Associates were contacted for their response concerning items discussed at the staff -Holstein meeting of September 13, 1977. Karl Wiebe indicated that some additional cost may be incurred if a separate phase were included which was directed toward the Environmental Impact Report only. This cost was, however, negotiable. Montgomery's time schedule for project comple- tion could vary somewhat but the geohydrologic study could probably be completed in three months. Design would follow but the implication was that the project could be competed within six months including a remedial design phase. If a cost estimate were included in the design study, the cost could be increased by as much as $1,100 (+10% of estimated cost). Leighton's representative indicated that information for the E.I.R. could be included as part of phase I and no additional cost would be incurred by inclusion as part of the study. Time estimate for completion of phase II would be six to nine months,the lower figure being more probable. If a cost estimate were included in the scope of work, total cost may be increased by $500. JIM EVANS JE:rw 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 640-2211 September 8, 1977 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES -THE BLUFFS GROUND WATER PROBLEMS SUBJECT: STAFF EVALUATION OF STUDY PROPOSALS Proposals for two different types of studies related to ground water problems of the Bluffs development in the City of Newport Beach. The first request for proposal consisted of only a ground water study of the Bluffs area; the second consisted of a review of the ground water problem locations, combined with design of an interceptor drain system to intercept problem ground water, and dispose of it in a,manner to eliminate existing problems. The two studies were to have been mutually independent so that the City could authorize one or the other studies to be conducted but not both. Summerized below is the staff's evaluation of each proposal and a recommendation for the choice of consultant for each type of study. A. Ground water study: Products to be supplied by consultant: bedrock surface contour map, ground water contour map, summary of offsite and onsite contributions of ground water. 1) LeRoy Crandall & Associates: 50 exploratory drill holes, 15 observation wells, total cost $53,000 to $63,000. The proposal includes a very complete analysis of the problem and a very thorough exploration program. Relies extensively on drilling to determine bedrock surface and ground water flow. 2) John Mann: No observation wells or exploratory drill holes, $4,000. It is staff's opinion that this estimate cannot provide the required exploration and evaluation needed to prepare the specified maps. 3) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.: 10 exploratory drill holes converted to observation wells, at least one pumping test, $24,000. The mix of field mapping and drill holes to supplement this information appears to be adequate to define the properties of the ground water flow. The price is reasonable and con- sistent with good engineering practices. Recommendation: James M. Montgomery City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Memo Staff evaluation of study proposals. Page 2 Design of system to intercept and' divert ground water from problem areas: Products to be supplied by consultant (.a) •evaluation of the entire Bluffs development for locations of ,ground water problems,,(b) sufficient subsurface information for general depths of drain installation, (c) proposed outlet points for diversion of subsurface water, and (d.) criteria for design of system. 1) LeRoy Crandall & Associates Divided into three phases., a) problem assessment, b) exploration including 50-drill holes, and c) detailed design of drain system and install.ati.on of monitoring. -. Cost: $58,000 to $63,000. The proposal, as was the geohyrologic study, i-s well thought out and very thorough and includes all necessary elements to satisfactorily complete the work. 2) Geotechnical Consultants: No specified number of drill hol-es but detailed methods outlined for progress and completion of work. Cost: $38,060 to $59,000. This proposal contains a sufficiently detailed methodology to al -low our approval of the character of the work to be performed. Our opinion is that the requi-rements ,of the R.F.P. can be met with the proposed methods and cost: 3) Leighton & Associates: Combination mapping with 20-25 drill holes combined with geophysical exploration. Cost: $21,500. The methods outlined, and the number of drill holes used can provide the required information. 4) James M. Montgomery: No drilling. Cost $11.,000 It is our opinion that satisfactory design cannot be performed for this cost. 5) W.A. Wahler: Use of geophysical exploration and drilling,. Extensive Phase I work (problem assessment'). Cost: $37,600 to $41,941. The proposal is complete and the method proposed can accomplish the required work. Recommendation: Although the Leighton proposal appears to be slightly low, the work could be accomplished with the method proposed'. Cost is very reasonable. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION Although the Montgomery proposal appears to be low for the Interceptor Design proposal, the combined cost of this design and the geohydrol'ogic work would be competative with most of the other estimates for one or the other packages. Consideration should be given'to this type of combination. CITY OF .NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA July 15, 1977 TO: • North Bluff Community Associations 92660 City Ball 3300 Newportlllvd. (714)Qk7A 0c 640-2137 SUBJECT: Comparisons of Water Usage from Last Year Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of comparisons of water usage in this year of drought. The table below shows water usage for your common landscape areas comparing cumulative inches of water applied as averaged over the entire common area. k=.,=.3 Area May 1976 Tract 6885 8.3 6905 10.8 6996 6.5 7052 16.5 7082 15.03 7083 15.1 7148 8.9 7166 18.6 7167 17.2. East Bluff School 3.3 East Bluff Park 3.8 May 1977 10.6 + 14.5 + 8.1 + 15.8 - 12.7 - 11.3 - 13.1 + 18.4 - 16.6 - 11.1 + 4.6 + Conclusions which may be drawn from these data are that any efforts to reduce water consumption have not been effective in achieving only that amount required by the plants. If water conservation goals are to be achieved, the cooperation of all water users is necessary. Very truly yours, DEPARIME-thT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ctor RVH/JRE/kk Newport Beach, California 92660 "COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT." CITY HALL 3300 Newl5ort Boulevard { Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Brian Loftus, President North "Bluff Bay View Community Association 2635 Vista Ornada Newport Beach, California 92660 Mr. Vernon Cornell, President North Bl.uff Park Association c/o Devine Properties, Inc. P.O.Box 687 Corona del Mar, California 92625 Mr. Tauno Koivisto, President North Bluff Villas Community Association c/o Devine Properties, Inc. P.O.Box 687: Corona del Mar, California 92625 It, 0 of Community Development c9Cf FORNP DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 1, 1977 Director Grading Engineer Ground water studies required for Tract 8681-8682, Holstein Industries The ground water problems.in the Bluffs development resolve themselves into two separate elements. The first and apparently most sensitive is that of ground. water seepage into garage and home areas. The second and of greater concern to Public Works as well as to individuals living along the perimeter of the Bluffs is that of long term stability of the escarpment. The first problem is dealt with in the Evans, Goffman Report. This problem is and should be one considered as part of construction development. The recommendations dealing 'with this aspect are standard solutions generally provided by the soil engineering profession. One improvement'on these standard recommendations is possible and I think, should be required in construction of the proposed buildings. The subdrains around the perimeter of the building should be constructed with designed filters for the soil. This process is not generally used due to the expense, but is a far more permanent solution than the general practice. Filter fabric could be used instead of a graded soil filter material. This extra design should only be required on those lots where the bedrock -terrace contact is exposed or is near ground surface. Drainage behind retaining walls should be required as a minimum for all units. The second problem is a larger scale problem dealing with the source(s), and. _•movement of ground water in the Eastbluff area.. The source(s) of ground water in the North Bluff area was only partially dealt with in the John Mann Study since the approach was to determine how much water was being placed on the ground in the common areas exceeding the plant requirements. Contributions from outside the North Bluff areas were not.considered as part of the study nor were alterna- tive directions of flow other than the known problem area along the bluff edge considered. These factors should be considered as part of any new study on Eastbluff. These considerations require that the following scope of work be used:. PHASE I 1). Review all pertinent soil and geologic data in the City's files. 2). Evaluate these data for pertinence to the proposed project. 3). Provide recommendations to the City if additional data are required which are not included in the City's files. J 0 0 Memo: To: Director re: Ground water studies for Tract 8681-8682 June 1, 1977 Page 2 PHASE II 4). Determine whether flows are confined only to the bedrock -terrace interface and if not, provide supporting information. 5). Provide a.map showing the generalized configuration of the terrace -bedrock contact surface. 6). Determine whether areas outside the Eastbluffs development contribute ground water to the area. 7). Determine existing flow direction(s) of subsurface waters. 8). Compare bedrock elevation data to ground surface elevations.to delineate potential problem areas from ground water buildup. 9). Provide recommendations for location and installation of permanent monitoring devices. 10). Summarize limitations of the study. 11). Provide conclusions regarding the source, movement, and ultimate destination of ground water in the area. It would seem prudent to request proposals from other well qualified firms. These include: Glen Brown of LeRoy Crandall & Associates, and James Montgomery & Associates. This procedure may lead to a better proposal since several pro- posals could be compared on their merits. , A study similar to the earlier John Mann investigation is not recommended at this time. The basis for this is that the earlier study had limitations which may be offset by the scope of work described above, and this scope of work will include a secondary evaluation of the earlier work to apply this to a different area. JIM EVANS JE:rw r -1 City Council Meeting November 22, 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 17, 1976 4(c)-2 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Progress Report #3 - Ground Water Study - North Bluffs Background Progress reports were given to you on August 9 and September 13, 1976, respectively, as to the water consumption in the North Bluff tracts. At the time of our last progress report, the managers for the North Bluffs Community Associations indicated to you that a program to reduce water consumption had been initiated. In addition, the North Bluff Bay View Community Association has also made arrangements with the Water Department to conduct monthly meter reading in lieu of the normal two month reading cycle. This change was initiated to provide closer monitoring of the water usage reduction program. Summary On September 15, 1976, a letter from the North Bluff Bay View Commun- ity Assodiation was received which contained the program of corrective measures proposed by their landscape experts, O'Connell Landscape Maintenance. The program consisted of new sprinkler controller set- tings which provided for a stated 50t reduction in water application. Subsequent to the October water meter readings, another letter from the North Bluff Bay View Community Association was received. The Community Association concluded that they had substantially reduced water usage, based on their own water meter readings. A summary analysis of the water applied to the grass areas has been prepared and is attached. The average annual applications are shown in the years 1970-1975. Also shown are the amounts of water applied every two months from March through September of this year and for the single month of October. The cumulative total application for the year through October is also shown. In order to compare October with the preceding readings, the amount for that month must be doubled. Although the yearly total to date indicates an application equal to preceding years, the City meter readings confirm that a reduction in water usage was evident in October. However, it is our feeling that the irrigation reduction program may have been too drastic. If water application reduction is too severe, the grass will brown and possible die out. Through proper testing and evaluation, the optimum amount of water needed to keep the grass in good condition, without resulting in run-off, can be determined. This is the amount that should be applied. Our reply and the previously mentioned letters are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C. Mr. Krauter of Professional Community Management, Inc., has requested that members of the City staff meet with the officers of the Commun- ity Association in the near future. This letter is also attached as Exhibit D. Conclusion Based on field review of the North Bluffs area and an analysis of the water meter readings taken on October 27, 1976, it is our opinion that the Community Associations have begun to reduce their watering. TO: Conclusion (Cont'd) City Council - 2, It is the intention of the staff to meet with the Associations in the near future to provide them with any assistance that we can to help them solve their problem. It is also our intention to continue monitoring water usage in the North Bluff area until a permanent program of landscape watering is established at or near the consumptive use requirement of the existing Vegetal cover in the area, Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V, HO Director By l Engineering Geologist CEH:rw Attachments for City Council Only; "A" Letter from Brian Loftus, President, North Bluff Bay View Community Association dated September 15, 1976 "B" Letter from Brian Loftus, President, North Bluff Bay View Community Association dated October 18, 1976 "C" Letter to Mr. Loftus from C. E. Hollon dated October 28, 1976. "D" Letter from Douglas J, Krauter, Professional Community Management dated November 9, 1976. "E" SUMMARY - Water Consumption Expressed in Depths of Water Applied to Grass Areas "F" Tract Boundaries for North Bluff Area 9 3 NORTEI September 15, 1976 Mr, C. E. Hollon Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr, Hollon: TION IFORNIA </ \\ / bevel., vm ,gn y. NEW�p1 RT OF > OALI °ck, This letter is in response to the request from the City Attorney under the date of August 31, 1976. As you are aware, Douglas J. Krauter, representing our managing agent, Professional Community Management, Inc., appeared before the City Council at the Study Session of September 13, 1976. Due to my inability to be there, our Vice -President, Mr. Al Schmitt, together with our Landscape Committee Chairman, Mr. John Thomas, were also present at this session. I have been advised that the degree of our efforts to participate in a voluntary correction of the ground water study was thoroughly aired in a discussion with the Council at this session. I would like to give some effect, however, to the fact that we, as a Board, and the residents all felt that the letter was precipitous action on your part and did not, in our opinion, reflect any credit to our Association whatsoever for what we thought was considerable effort. Be that as it may, we enclose another copy of the plan of action entered into with our landscape contractor which briefly cuts all watering down to 50%. This has now been in effect for almost two weeks. In addition, we are looking to the correction of the one area where watering problems have given an indication of constant over watering at the time of any inspections. Briefly, as stated by Mr. Krauter at the Study Session, we have taken the following steps: ASSOCIATION MANAGER: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, INC. 1151 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 9266D, (714) 833.3313 ,;C-XH//3 iT „4 4 4,. 9 is NORTH Mr. C. E. Hollon 1. Acquired a tensiometer. TION IFORNIA September 15, 1976 Page 2 2. Through Soil Moisture Equipment Corporation, had training from Whitney Skaling in the effective use of this instrument, plus ideas on sprinkler distribution. , 3. Requested and received a visit from the Rainbird Service Staff out of Santa Monica, California. 4. Received assistance in evaluation of sprinklers, soils and grasses from: (a) Westley A. Humphrey; and (b) Stan Spalding. Both of these individuals are under the U.C. Cooperative Extension program and I am sure are known to you as people of authority in this field. We will continue to do everything we can to cut the watering so as to extend all the cooperation we can to the City of Newport Beach. At the same time we hope to make other improvements which will assist in this effort. I would appreciate your keeping in close contact with Mr. Krauter both as to inspections and measurements, and any ideas which might help us. It was my understanding that this is what the Council desired. Very truly .Brian J L Presid t BJL:kl Enclosure cc: Dennis D. O'Neil City Attorney Board of Directors NBBVCA ASSOCIATION MANAGER: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, INC. 1151 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA.92660, (714) 833.3313 .! State License No. 309179 O'Connell Landscape Maintenance 1921 Yale Street • Santa Ana, CA 92704 (714) 751-2658 Board of•Directors,North Bluff C/o Professional Community Management 1151 Dove Street Newport Beach,Calif. Regardingi Water Seepage problem & corrective measures to be taken. Dear Directors, The following are the locations,amount of time, and number of days for all of the sprinkler controllers. This is anew proposed schedule we have been using for 10 days and should lessen the amount of water usage by a great amount thereby lessening the amount of seepage into the.Bay. This new program will promote a browning out tendency at first but after a prolonged period. of time (1-2 months) the lawns should adapt to it. This same schedule will not however hold out in hot summer weather so it will have to be revised if we have an prolonged period of hot weather. It is,my opinion that the program should be tried even if the appeararge of the lawn areas should deteriorate because the long ranged effects will be beneficial to all. Clock location Amount 2@ Madera 2@pool #1 20behind.V. Nobleza 1@Nata 2@Otero 1@Onda 2@Onda Greenbelt 2@behind Ornada (slide area) 1@Parada 2@Playa l@Playa greenbelt 1@pool # 4 1@Eastbluff Drive of time for shrubs,lawns,R/B*s 2mins. 5mins.lominR. 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10. 2' 5 • • 10 2 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5, 10 2 5 10 5 10 2 10 2 5 10 The above mentioned schedule will 50%. The schedule may have to be this should not have any effect on used. Davis .days 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 cut our present water usage rate admended in certain areas but the overall amount of water Yp,urs Truly, . -G`'eo'rge' D. 0' Connell INDU.k:;TRIAL 0 CONDOMINIUM ' COMMERCIAL • low 6 9 NORTH October 18, 1976 9 \4c0 Mr, C. E. Hollon - ��q'4p��0g• Department of Community Development OQce City of Newport Beach d, 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 w ro Dear Mr. Hollon: Reference our letter of September 15, 1976, in compliance with Mr. O'Neil's letter of August 31, 1976, to all Association members. In accordance with your suggestion, Mr. D. J. Krauter of Professional Community Management, Inc., our Management Agent, made arrangements with Mr. Joe Devlin, Director of Public Works, for a joint reading of the water meters for the common areas of North Bluff Bay View on October 14, 1976 - one month after the last billing date. The City Attorney's letter•(of August 31, 1976) referenced above, was presented to the City Council Study Session on September 13, 1976 and contained your updated analysis. Prior to that time you furnished a letter to our Association setting forth what we have interpreted as the standards of water penetration reflecting the City's target. This target, according to our analysis, would have allowed North Bluff Bay View in the neighborhood of 210,000 cubic feet of water in the period of September 15, 1976 to October 14, 1976. Since we used approximately 211,000 cubic feet it is our feeling that we have essentially met the City's requirements, and will continue to do so. You will note that our common area includes a dedicated portion known as Vista del Bolsa (between Nobleza and Madera) as well as the Sewer Road area. Both of these locations require a considerable amount of water, even under minimum standards. ASSOCIATION MANAGER: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, INC. 1151 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660, (714) 833.3313 i/ ry .,�:X H 113 iT NORTH Mr. C. E. Hollon TION IFORNIA October 18, 1976 The desire on the part of the City to cut back so drastically has been extremely upsetting to the residents. I am sure you will be hearing from them on an individual basis. Sin erely, rian Ljof Presi nt kl cc: Mr. O'Neil, City Attorney Mr. John Sands, Irvine Company Ms. Joanne Reynolds, Daily Pilot -2- ASSOCIATION MANAGER: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, INC. 1161 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660, (714) 833.3313 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 640-2211 October 28, 1976 Mr. Brian Loftus, President North Bluff Bay View Community Association c/o 1151 Dove Street, Suite 260 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Loftus: Thank -you for your letters of September 15 and October'18,'1976. We were pleased to learn of the assistance that you were to receive from Messrs. Ilestly A. Humphrey. and Stan Spalding of the U. C. Cooperative Extension Program. We are looking forward to seeing their evaluation of your sprinklers, soils and grasses. I am sure that their assistance will be of value to your associ- ation and neighboring associations where similar problems exist. I was amazed to learn of your drastic curtailment in the irrigation program for your community. If you will recall; Dr. Mann's report made reference to several test stations in southern California - where consumptive rates for grasses had been determined. These rates varied from 34 inches to 44 inches annually. Using the Department of Water. Resources estimates for Zone 9, the consumptive rate for the turfs contained in your community and for our climate would probably be on the order of 41 inches of water annually,-. including rainfall. Using this higher figure to allow for sprinkler problems, runoff and evaporation, it is our conclusion that a 50% reduction across the board is probably not in the -best interests of your association and not the desire of the City staff. Based on the applied rates of water (John Mann report, table 2, page 13), the reduction per tract on a yearly average, would be as follows; Tract 7052 Tract 7062 Tract 7083 Tract 7166 Tract 7167 28% 28% 28% 42% 40% X h`/8I7" u „ \1. City ?;-Tall * 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 P - t Mr, Brian Loftus October 28, 1976 Page 2 This is, of course, only a yearly average to obtain an overall application of water, close to the amount that the grass will need and use in a given year. As you know, water in excess of this amount will either runoff or migrate downward and become a part of the ground water system, If severe browning of the turf is occurring, it would seem that you are not applying sufficient landscape water to meet the plants needs and are below the "consumptive use" for your grass. At the Council Meeting of June 28, 1976, your predecessor, Mr, John Webster, was given eight (9) copies of Dr, John Mann's report for use by your association. If assistance in analyzing the reports is needed or an explanation of how to use the data is required, a member of the City staff will be pleased to assist you. It is our suggestion that water application should be based on the consumptive use of the grass since water, in excess of that amount is wasted and less than that amount "browns" the •turf area. The principal concern of the City staff is that the slope below tracts 7082-7166 and Back Bay Drive will fail and result in a•break in the community sewer•line. Mr. Joh Webster was originally advised of this concern on June 30, 1975. A copy of this letter is attached for your convenience. Temporary repairs, as you know, were made to the slope by the Irvine Company in June, 1975. Permanent repair work cannot be -undertaken until ground water seepage in that area has been reduced. Your prudent use of irrigation waters will greatly assist in drying this area so that this hazard to the community sewer ca.n be eliminated. Attached, for your information, is a copy of the Citizens Environ- mental Quality Control Advisory Committee to the City -Council re- garding Landscaping Policies dated 9-29-76. I hope it will be of some value to you. Thank -,you again for your response. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF cbmt.•1WITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOUJAR, Assistant Director -Building B r i E. HOLL N, Engineering Geologist CEH:rw Attch 0 10 ...amim-Im, (71+)833 3313 IPd DOVE SIREEI, Mille 960, NEWPOR7 BEACH, CALIFORNIA 99660 November 9, 1976 Mr. C. E. Hollon Engineering Geologist City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Ground Water Study Report Tract 7166 Seepage Problem North Bluff Bay View Community Association Dear Mr. Hollon: Reference your letter dated October 28, 1976. I met with members of the North Bluff Bay View Community Association Board last Thursday evening following our conversation that morning and the above captioned subject was discussed at great length. Your discussion of a meeting with you and Public Works to include Dr. Mann was accepted as a very workable method of approaching the solution to our common problem. I have indicated to you personally some of the problems confronting our Board's thinking. The principal item revolves around one question: "Are the other areas being monitored so as to be sure North Bluff is not the only culprit in the water problem?" In order to enable Dr. Mann to be responsive in clearing up their questions they have set forth the following items which disturb them and which they would like to have discussed: 1. In computing the acreage involved in the study problem area was the section marked Vista del Bolsa and Vista del Vela, which is owned by the Irvine Company but maintained by the Association, included? Obviously the sprinkler system services this particu- lar area which has been offered by the Irvine Company to the City for dedication and has not been accepted. The Irvine Company contributes to the maintenance: the issue here is whether or not the acreage is being used in computing the watering statistics. Along 'with this problem the members of the Board questioned whether or not the Sewer Road is indeed dedicated to the City and if so has the square footage involved also been used in these computations? Since these are two major areas of the seepage problem the Board feels that it is necessary to clarify these problems. Ex N 15 a-rl p COUNSELING / MARKETING / PLANNING — CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS / REAL ESTATE BROKER Mr. C. E. Hollon November 9, 1976 2. On page 3 of Dr. Mann'.s report there is a discussion of drilling the terrace deposits prior to construction. A description of Boring #1 and Boring #18, as well as the other discussions in this particular context left them with the - concern as to exactly how it effects the present North Bluff Bay View problem. 3. Table #1, page 11 of the report concerns lawn irrigation and acreage feet from 1970 to 1975. The Board feels that 1970 to 1973 would seem to be not as contemporary as later evidence. The principal question here however is whether or not you would be willing to include North Bluff Park's current data inasmuch as the North Bluff Bay View Board members are convinced that there is as much water being poured into the lawns in the Park area as there is in their area. 4. The Board would also appreciate further discussion by Dr. Mann on the chemical evidence of seepage, page 15 and continuing. Their specific interest is where in the East Bluff area were the tests made of the domestic water. 5. An additional comment as to the contour of the East Bluff area with all other Associations up above North Bluff Bay View and its relationship to any seepage would be of great interest to Board members. I also advised those members representing the Board that there would be a report to the City on November 22. If we have not had a meeting by that time our joint efforts to reach a solution to the problem should be evidence to the Council of the good faith of North Bluff Bay View Community Association. DJK:kl cc' Brian Loftus Al Schmitt John Thomas John Sands Sincerely, 4PZA Doug as J. Krauter, CPM Vice -President -2- kl l SUMMARY WATER CONSUMPTION EXPRESSED IN DEPTHS OF WATER APPLIED TO GRASS AREAS. TRACT NO. ACRES OF GRASS AVERAGE DEPTHS OF WATER, J. MANN REPORT 1976 DEPTHS (INCHES) TABLE 2, PAGE 13. 1970-1975 FEET INCHES MAR MAY JULY 6885 5.39 3.32 39.8 Monthly 2.69 5.58 14.4 Yearly total to date 22.7 6905 6.16 4.25 51.0 Monthly 2.20 8.61 21.06 Yearly total to date 31.9 6996 7.56 2.86 34.3 Monthly 2.01 4.50 8.18 Yearly total to date 14.7 7052 4.23 4.74 56.9 Monthly 6.58 9.91 21.11 Yearly total to date 37.6 7082 6.89 4.70 56.4 Monthly 4.72 10.32 16.25 Yearly total to date 31.3 7083 1.73 4.73 56.8 Monthly 5.70 9.46 17.05 Yearly total to date 32.21 7148 3.78 3.96 47.5 Monthly 2.83 6.09 15.04 Yearly total to date_ 24.0 7166 4.38 5.92 71.0 Monthly 6.77 11.82 21.36 Yearly total to date 56.2 7167 3.16 5.70 68.4 Monthly 6.14 11.12 16.43 Yearly total to date 33.7 * Error in meter reading. ** Combined August & September. *** Meter Problems CH 11-76 SEPT 12.1 34.8 19.2 51.1 6.60 21.3 11.19 48.8 21.30 52.6 15.29 47.52 14.50 38.4 29.97** 69.9 OCT NOV DEC 3.8 38.7 6.63 56.7 2.96 24.3 2.83 51.6 2.52 55.1 4.30 51.8 4.08 42.5 3.23 ** yr 73.2 `` I *** Exhibit "E" 0 I� \\ /: U' !! • .��U�f� �•� r all/� : • !1/, u' V SEEPAGE P r••,;. •'1\6•�' Q I � :; DER I ��:.,. AREA' �`�'' a h CjrR VU J SCHOOL. PARK \ ' Q .I �' ate; ,J ��:,�` W ��L \\�, •v-n �'�* Q' v . to 9.—i •9 \ Si p'riFp •• � �`?) yfr ' pE00�;'�,J,•,pA y„ \ 3'.� p,'10 x drnCTra' oi•i:♦ rwv �a�14, Bl. � c, o � so• � \I \, ;,":;- _`� uw,•P;t. Gv�O`a \\ �F• �/ y.. .ate S/. �fA Q 1 I � J\y''(L.'JJ •'n\�_� ( 'IC_•�-:�`"�_�./�` .^Ifs \ I \ `l' '`\`tr/STA t•-�a?,i L •tiq^ i �_seT„ . / 0 1 ♦_q` 1 (NJ�- �� o� TRACT BOUNDARIES FOR NORTH BLUFF AREA DRAWN:G.LW. DATE:6-3-76 ' N EXHIBIT N r • Mr. C. E. Hollon Engineering Geologist City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 • NC. (714) 033.3313 1151 DOVE STREET, SUITE 260, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 November 9, 1976 Re: Ground Water Study Report Tract 7166 Seepage Problem North Bluff Bay View Community Association Dear Mr. Hollon: Reference your letter dated October 28, 1976. I met with members of the North Bluff Bay View Community Association Board last Thursday evening following our conversation that morning and the above captioned subject was discussed at great length. Your discussion of a meeting with you and Public Works to include Dr. Mann was accepted as a very workable method of approaching the solution to our common problem. I have indicated to you personally some of the problems confronting our Board's thinking. The principal item revolves around one question: "Are the other areas being monitored so as to be sure North Bluff is not the only culprit in the water problem?" In order to enable Dr. Mann to be responsive in clearing up their questions they have set forth the following items which dis.gurb them and which they would like to have discussed: 1. In computing the acreage involved in the study problem area was the section marked Vista del Bolsa and Vista del Vela, which is owned by the Irvine Company but maintained by the Association, included? Obviously the sprinkler system services this particu- lar area which has been offered by the Irvine Company to the City for dedication and has not been accepted. The Irvine Company contributes to the maintenance: the issue here is whether or not the acreage is being used in computing the watering statistics. Along with this problem the members of the Board questioned whether or not the Sewer Road is indeed dedicated to the City and if so has the square footage involved also been used in these computations? Since these are two major areas of the seepage problem the Board feels that it is necessary to clarify these problems. COUNSELING / MARKETING / PLANNING - CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS / REAL ESTATE BROKER 0 Mr. C. E. Hollon November 9, 1976 2. On gage 3 of Dr. Mann's report there is a discussion of drilling the terrace deposits prior to construction. A description of Boring #1 and Boring #18, as well as the other discussions in this particular context left them with the concern as to exactly how it effects the present North Bluff Bay View problem. 3. Table #1, page 11 of the report concerns lawn irrigation and acreage feet from 1970 to 1975. The Board feels that 1970 to 1973 would seem to be not as contemporary as later evidence. The principal question here however is whether or not you would be willing to include North Bluff Park's current data inasmuch as the North Bluff Bay View Board members are convinced that there is as much water being poured into the lawns in the Park area as there is in their area. 4. The Board would also appreciate further discussion by Dr. Mann on the chemical evidence of seepage, page 15 and continuing. Their specific interest is where in the East Bluff area were the tests made of the domestic water. 5. An additional comment as to the contour of the East Bluff area with all other -Associations up above North Bluff Bay View and its relationship to any seepage would be of great interest to Board members. I also advised those members representing the Board that there would be a report to the City on November 22. If we have not had a meeting by that time our joint efforts to reach a solution to the problem should be evidence to the Council of the good faith of North Bluff Bay View Community Association. DJK:kl cc: Brian Loftus Al Schmitt John Thomas John Sands 1 Sincerely",, 01 DougT as J. Krauter, CPM Vice -President -2- i G°, • 'JI V .. ` �� \`brat r t•,, t'tt° ': .� ,.. _� rOi ,I't V\ GeM1 f••,tt wPCFte ItP P•OYal1 �{ ;"• liJ `u v r _ • ^`i� • l0.{GhG`Otl(.P!P4<<G•1<•°'�\ tirlll[� \ i. ,l •� ' J,VtM1 !/ AaG/\ • (J f '• 1 IN it PJ-tM1�ufJ<i1t°Et)tM � fit`<YtOD .11,t '' •fYb tGl•'ti y. t •P•A01t Cu`s4 CG°4 NGLt , �.t•f % J♦♦J ,L' Irt, SJ F•• 0 �4 • iI r• .,� aj w, y ?� D6L 601.SA a• µM1• .;•y,GyLT"i •:>� . °� .. v- i .. J `P .'_l"L�. \ qrr, ♦rt f• rfM1• � J,. J • \1S - .., =5��":^�.' tY `1t '; " :- td.tt l':� •- "J 0.4fJ Ir e- Y. 't J IJ• J e.a )i It 4. - '. `iJ. .J�M1 ` j `\ f' °rr'f ��lY`C°r � i • a�f.. „u•ttpn ta.a tfaa.fl, `S,•• ..' 6 4 i• •. .' � r . °r Jo^ I (',•t..ULI� _Vb•J <�JOJr?li0 'Y.♦•Ot+�Y ' .S�'�. :.1� r♦. Y t{ r ti.aY t CJ 1pi 23 � •t•?`, r a; Jf ,'b. 0 • C. 1 " ( t Yhi, ''�• � aJ � ♦ali ��'}S°+r L a4°t t3'-'t'f�t. Y t..4�i%r'e ,1'Irr' .. L�� 9r. ,Ei, � Jrl .,g'♦ 'a/ Z mf ♦,° t•:d •vim `` V L i`' � .`I. � •JY wW/.`�t° la 1 }'P \ ,P ,f` A _ 5•.�}i'I f / i4`°. t. ty ''t ' ,.YtdaG .t ' .• `� F4 p \'/_ .Pu'•t.w,r �f 'ir„ • ,a°t f,'�i 'u•i '7a-ii'� t • ,? • l .4�. vir''' ,,. \ •r f,•t i, n �r.I a'' 4' �;tPi- % ntN t` < 4L %1: t �� V M1� :•r oG`oi'7e c X9y \Y((� b y �:8 ' it:. J' .� ' ,p \ t l „ • � `' \ P '. f Pu At tf6t• P .r � qir. •'tl ll'j °a R°, v r t.a,: �MPOr ti •.... • \'J.• ' `�r, dl � �%_ � t v W y fi' 9 - \ �Ya,.e,.7. �- „/ YY.,jAa�e M1, •'� a.a�{a ,\�r'ir � v 4J♦�`�� ilr � / �,/ y�5�\ �. f* .� �. • rt �• ,i> <°%.l '\t•� • \ t� `f1r�\• • ,%il•f.Sy t.tlaa RP Qa ~ P /^ � may? •\ STa E `�, U', • L,1Y .../�/;I ,� � / '�`,Pfa}. � ,•Yi�rf�.\VJ I•IY<I iY 60)°a��•N" // tJ , -Z � , :�R _,' ,: J.�•.' � try,' � ",J. H •t :, t .�� 1 ( �l / / `5 `• tit /., / '' e, i� ; " •+ o ,�• `�•�L''�Pt� ib i varu» GaN q _ 1' '� �S _S I 'C ruS,ai [riC / •. ,.E_\t4.• a+� p ~ t ,'^ ^� ' {rt J' �•' .". J( ` .•!}"'• •' •�f>..' ♦ Jfd' jaYttb A. ,,r'::/ �4• ,,t°a�f� ii1fia ° •=-i; 7�:.;:; ` :✓: .jr. 'P •r t� .9 p't0,pt ..ti v . �r . ^'� -,4. j/:.. ia'�,•' l ar' ,^�•'�... r:-; i� .. �f, •�i ,'• , /� •.—'-• 1'Y /n. Rl .. 8 � i :,i'ft �;SV '?«\'�� •ix�. �•,°hM1 t- �� , hYY /'. �M1a Y �: • 1 ��at �� f � : ',+1y5'. t. jj' r� .. 6r ,,6 i W ♦ Ytf t io+ .>' -� ~, i• t •,.; ` ..f q • e.<, ' i, `df.' b^!�. ifAV .1 � r 1G' i �Y.k'''.� tot .i'•,. , �.• .,(,. :t . rR •t• fir N .fJr Yj 8 O t•\ rr,]v {i �^ ., �� t, ,.:4 r •j tit 1( Ii as � fl� IP r•• :} Y, -,I;x , � � lb r, w I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 640-221 October 28, 1976 Mr. Brian Loftus, President N'orth Bluff Bay View Community Association c/o 1151 Dove Street, Suite 260 Newport•Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Loftus: Thank -you for your letters of September 15 and October 18, 1976. We were pleased to learn of the assistance that you were to receive from Messrs. Westly A. Humphrey and Stan Spalding of the U. C. Cooperative Extension Program. We are looking forward to seeing their evaluation of your sprinklers, soils and grasses. I am sure that their assistance will be of value to your associ- ation and neighboring associations where similar problems exist. I was amazed to learn of your drastic curtailment in the irrigation program for your community. If you will recall, Dr. Mann's report made reference to several test stations in southern California where consumptive rates for grasses had been determined. These rates varied from 34 inches to 44 inches annually. Using the Department of Water. Resources estimates for Zone 9, the consumptive rate for the turfs contained in your community and for our climate would probably be on the order of 41 inches'of water annually, including rainfall. Using this higher figure to allow for sprinkler problems, runoff and evaporation, it is our conclusion that a 50% reduction across the board is probably not in the best interests of your association and not the desire of the City staff, Based on the applied rates of water (John Mann report, table 2, page 13), the reduction per tract on a ,yearly average, would be as follows; Tract 7052 28% Tract 7082 28% Tract 7-083 28% Tract 7166 42% Tract 7167 40% City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Brian Loftus Page 2 October 28, 1976 This is, of course, only a yearly average to obtain an overall application of water, close to the amount that the grass will need and use in a given year. As you know, water in excess of this amount will either runoff or migrate.downward and become a part of the ground water system. If severe browning of the turf is occurring, it would seem that you are not applying sufficient landscape water to meet the plants needs and are below the "consumptive use" for .your grass. At the Council Meeting of June 28, 1976, your predecessor, Mr. John Webster, was given eight (8) copies of Dr; John Mann's report for use by your association. If assistance in analyzing the reports is needed or an explanation of how to use the data is required,"a member of the City staff will be pleased to assist you. It is our suggestion that water application should be based on the consumptive use of the grass since water, in excess of that amount is wasted and less than that amount "browns" the turf area. The principal concern of the City staff is that the slope below tracts 7082-7166 and Back Bay Drive will fail and result in a•break in the community sewer line. Mr. Joh Webster was originally advised of this concern on June 30, 1975. A copy of this letter is attached for your convenience. Temporary repairs, as you know, were made to the slope by the Irvine Company in June, 1975. Permanent repair work cannot be undertaken until ground water seepage in that area has been reduced. Your prudent use of irrigation waters will greatly assist in drying this area so that this hazard to the community sewer can be eliminated. Attached, for your information, is a copy of the.Citizens Environ- mental Quality Control Advisory Committee to the City -Council re- garding Landscaping Policies dated 9-29-76. I hope it will be'of. some value to ,you. Thank -you again for your response. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB MDAR, Assistant Director -Building B C. E. HOLL N, Engineering Geologist CEH:rw Attch CITY OF NEWPORP BEAC;I I CALIFORNIA John Webster, President North Bluff. Bay View C. A. 436 Onda Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Earl Timmons, President North Bluff Park C. A, 400 Vista Trucha Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 szsso City Tull 3300 Newport Blva. (7!4)=:a:;t9 640-2211 June 30, 1975 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING AND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE Gentlemen: During the past several months personnel from the Community Development and Public Works Departments have examined your green belt areas as well as the perimeter slopes along Back Bay Drive. - Spring activity has been noticeable for sometime in one particular area along the slope adjacent to Back Bay Drive below Tract 7082. Recently, the flows from this springs area increased and the bank began.to fail. The failure began to accelerate rapidly over the weekend of June 21-22, 1975, jeopardizing the community sewer. line which services your area. As a result, the City directed The Irvine Company to make temporary repairs to arrest the ' ' slide's progress. These repairs were performed on an emergency basis on June 25 & 26, 1975. In addition, City personnel checked the underground utilities in the area for leaks and to date no failure has been detected. In our opinion,•excessive landscaping water has been a major • -- con•tributor to this slope instability. The geologic conditions beneath this community will provide for a rise in the water table or a perched water table whenever the soil infiltration rate exceeds plant usage, evaporation and runoff in the landscaped areas. TO: C-A. - North Bluff page 2 We are requesting that your Community Association reduce the watering of the landscaped areas immediately. This reduction in water usage will help protect you from a slope failure which could result in a break in -your community sewer line. Attached, for your convenience, is a Landscaping Maintenance Guide prepared for Orange C6unty by Mr. Fred Long, Landscape Architect: Although the "Guide" is several years old, the theory of landscaping of engineered slopes, such as those in your com- munity, are still valid. If we can assist you in any way, please feel free to call on us. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOWLER, Assistant Director -Building By C. E. HOLLON Engineering Geologist Attch BF:CEH:rw xc: Irvine Company Professional Community Management Public Works Department Director-Com. Dev. Department Harbor Investments fi 6 9 CITY OF NE Y Y PORT BEACH CALIFORNIA ersea City Hall Poo Newport Blvd.. {'lid) September 29, 1976 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Citizens Environmental Quality Control Adv4ssory Committee SUBJECT: Landscaping Policies Newport Beach is within a geographical part of the West that receives relatively little annual rainfall. In spite of this fact, most of the public and private landscaping within the City consists of plant species requiring much more water than naturally occurs. Heavy watering has threatened hillside stability and severe slippage has already been documented in several locations. As a result of heavy watering, detrimental pollutants consisting of pesticides and growth -inducing chemicals are washed into Newport Bay and the ocean. Unnecessarily large amounts of water are needed to maintain tropical or semi- tropical landscaping thus depleting further our already seriously diminished s.upply of water. Growing awareness of water usage problems has led CEQCAC to seek alternatives to the type of planting so far practiced throughout the City. We have concluded that landscaping with native or drought -tolerant species of plants is a logical alternative. Xerophytic (or drought -tolerant) plants are adapted naturally to our Mediterranean climate and require no more water than annually occurs,thereby, eliminating heavy watering and wasteful runoff. Many of these plants have unusually deep•root systems that contribute to increased stability of hillsides. Heavy applications of pesticides or nutrients are unnecessary with native plants;consequently, pollution of the local bay and marine environment is reduced. Many xerophytic species have handsome foliage and remain green throughout the year. Some have attractive flowers, berries or unusual shapes. All are equal in aesthetic quality to plants requiring far more water and maintenance. Because of the serious consequences of continuing our present landscaping practices and the extreme logic of using drought - tolerant plants, CEQCAC respectfully suggests that the City Council adopt a policy that the City of Newport Beach landscape with drought -resistant plants and encourage the use of such plants wherever possible. A sensible change from traditional landscaping policies would be a far-sighted move in the face of decreasing water supply, destruction of the local environment, increasing pollution and increasing water rates. • TO: City Council Page Two Respectfully submitted, Al .sue &ee Mandy Cole, ecretary MC:jmb NC (714) 833.3313 1151 DOVE STREET, SUITE 260, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 September 132 1976 lJt City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Study Session Agenda Item #5-C-2 Gentlemen: Reference is made to a letter from the City Attorney concerning over -watering of landscaping in Tract numbers 7166, 7167, 7052, 7082 and 7083. These comprise properties within the common areas of the North Bluff Bay View Community Association, Newport Beach, California. Mr. O'Neil's letter expresses the City's dissatisfaction as to the Association's action in cutting the water consumption of their areas. It requests that the Association contact Mr. C.E. Ho11on of the City's Community Development Department within 15 days of August 31, 1976. At this time the Association is to submit the plan of action being taken to reduce the water consumption. The Association will comply with the Attorney's request. In order to fully advise the Council as to actions which have been, taken by the Association, Association representatives and Management representatives are appearing at this Study Session.. In addition to the comments at this session, we attach a specific ' plan which we hope will work toward correction of the water seepage problem. Sincerely, Douglas J. rauter, GPM Vice -President DJI(: kl Attachments cc: Board of Directors North Bluff Bay View Comm. Assoc. COUNSELING / MARKETING / PLANNING - CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS / REAL ESTATE BROKER 1921 Yale Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 Board of•Directo-rs,North Bluff C/o Professional Community Management 1151 Dove Street Newport Beach,Cali='. • (714) 751-2658 Regarding: Water Seepage problem & corrective measures to be taken. Dear Directors, The following are the locations,amount of time, and number of days for all of the sprinkler controllers. This is a•new proposed schedule we have been using for 10 days and should lessen the amount of water usage by a great amount thereby lessening the amount of seepage into the.lay. This new program will promote a browning out tendency at first but after a prolonged period. of time (1-2 months) the lawns should adapt to it. This ; same schedule will not however hold out in hot summer weather so it will have to be revised if we have an prolonged period of hot weather. I;t is. my opinion that the program. should be tried even if the appearance of the lavrn areas should deteriorate because the long ranged effects will be beneficial to.all,. . Clock location Amount 2@ Madera 2@pool 7ur1 2@behind.V. Nobleza 1@Nata 2@Otero 1@Onda 2@Onda Greenbelt 2@behind Ornada (slide area) 1@Parada 2@Playa 1@Playa greerbelt 1@pool # 4 1@Eas-tbluff Drive of time for shrubs,lawns.R/B'_s 2mins. 5mins,lOminR. 2 5 10 2' 5 10 2 5 10 2. 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 10 z 5 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 Days 4days 4.- 4 4 4 4 4 4. - 4 4 4 4 The above mentioned schedule will cut our present water usage rate 50%., The schedule may have -to be admende'd in certain areas but this -should not have any effect on the overall amount of via -ter used. Yours Truuly. -= George' •D: O' Connell IINDU:': TMAL o COjjDOj'OjjNlUjM ° COI:liflERCIAL City Council Meeting September 13, 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 8, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Progress Report #2 - Ground Water Study - North Bluffs Background_ On August 9, 1976, you were given a status report on the ground water problem in the North Bluffs area of Newport Beach. Subsequent to that meeting, Community Development, Public Works and the City Attorney's personnel met, as directed, to determine the best method of obtaining the cooperation of the homeowner's associations in reducing water consumption in the North Bluff communities. A copy of the August 9, 1976, progress report is attached for your convenience as additional background information. Summary Personnel from the Public Works Department obtained the 1976 figures for water consumption in the North Bluffs area. This data was then placed in the same format as the data contained in the Dr. Mann report. Water consumption for each tract from January 1 to July 1, 1976, is shown in exhibits A to A9• Data for Tract 7166 (Exhibit A8) are shown for a longer 4 riod Axtending 52 days beyond the July billing. The City Attorney's office has 1.) notified the homeowner's associations of their continued overwatering, Exhibits D and D , and 2.) prepared a.code amendment which provides for the conServatign of water and the necessary authority to control misuse of water. Conclusion A review of the water consumption data for 1976 shows little or no reduction from previous usage. Those tracts that have been overwatering are still applying water at about the same rate as in past years. A visit to the area on September 1, 1976, by Community Development personnel revealed that conditions within the tracts investigated by the Dr. Mann report are about the same as they were when last visited. Standing water was observed in many areas, meter boxes full of water, water flowing in curbs along Vista del Oro and the broken sprinkler head at the top of the slope above the failure below Tract 7166 has still not been repaired. In order to be sure that the residents in the North Bluffs area are aware of the overwatering problem, copies of the City Attorney's letters have been hand delivered to each resident in tracts identified as high water users. These were: North Bluff Bay View Community Association Tracts 7166, 7167, 7052, 7082 and 7083 North Bluff Villas Community Association Tract No. 6905 T `Z TO: City Council -2- Should these community associations not make a serious effort to reduce the application of landscaping water within the time frame specified by the City Attorney, other methods of curtailing water delivery to these tracts will be pursued. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOG Director By C. E. HOLLON, Engin ering Geologist CEH:rw Attachments for City Council Only: Exhibit A - Tract 6885 Exhibit A2- Tract 6905 Exhibit A3- Tract 6996 Exhibit A4- Tract 7052 Exhibit A5- Tract 7082 Exhibit A6- Tract 7083 Exhibit A7- Tract 7148 Exhibit A8- Tract 7166 Exhibit A9- Tract 7167 Exhibit B - Table 1 Exhibit C - Table 2 Exhibit D1- Letter dated 8-31-76 to N. Bluff Bay View C.A. from City Attorney Exhibit D2- Letter dated 8-31-76 to N. Bluff Villas C.A. from City Attorney August 4, 1976, Progress Report to City Council COAJ a .2d-5 7za'7z _ /97 2�7 7 -2AC 77 /D9/ l 01526' i ',�', ��rv��✓r_-r��.�.� �'a� G'2ass G_ .ass .9�aE.4' aF 5, 3� I'I 17Z4'zl i ei r✓tit/ I .�/dr.� . 3 7z I j ;:. .(�i L:-ice%r� <r EI?!J-Fr C� /�O/?.. �20SS �A•� $ �%/.}E� ell , Gti>c1,20 ... 1 141, . • . - . _ . /O O G � r4G/2F .CT FFLr7' ///f.4':-.5 G✓'' 7C-'/� /moo» SI ur,�:- �� /95yo�383 •?••19s90 88�1 _. _.. 56� V l0 4/7/ 560 >t/o ✓ I Jam; J ✓t°i2G�.�- )d i�02 �20 � �A-SS �i`'E�pp' 6� • • f /0 o G Al 7E W, Y 7- I/G8 471(ol 9.7e) 16-141 .. - , - ... I - . . 2 14- . 11-74> l 4/6, z 7AP G7.Sr 0,83 A-741 57�01_6 '729 0 57-741 13, Z/= �E�X) / 49 7— Co� .' �a-i� �l-,G �/ �oo c,z=.J /fA,�' . //. , ;� ✓a,c.�! . rE: r'_ f 36G /V 76 7241 7 1057 .67 ae6`1 /07 569 a J`',�i�. rJ: _✓, ..'.::._ /� ll� /�c?`Cij ! .. ��✓ce/�oc�c�� for'., flr v ✓�s�./ JErr /Vov ✓�n1 �_...........�._.....! 9ys . - M zo0:5 �� ff' ..... ....... .. . •.471 i� it/�CJr/...' � �i �rGly!:'P__`��OOCF•J �IJ,E'. /�%G1 Y ✓L!�_'/ �iE-r'Y I /ao 175- 3v c5 i,3 Z 3 7`L Al- 2oi,3 237 300 6%5 77 1"-7��/:=/(�>!d�.?.,a.•r��, �'`o�r_ G'2oss G%�.�ss .9.a�,4 0� '-�---' 7-�`'-- ' t ��ar�.v1 Z• n'AY •::7f i _ :mac-'t<✓�-r�.✓ nJ /OJ C_,cr !d/�<G /f�._./ J!: t Y � vc . 70 7;1,7A / /7 AS 7 % Gl0 25 �CD� 25.70 2.',7 r, �L �rJ �/i�f�"/J, �:��=� Fd�C'� .. �7 /G'��... "/2/-'.J .�i _C"�:'. t"-ir' i%` •r//J� !f ��C � :i '%-07ic 4,9 .._/1776_ B9Z� 2.n. °r� �. 0 /'o 0 C. r- -73 '7" 7 . ... ...... 11 Table 1. Water Ctoliveree for lawn irrigation in acre-feet per year.. Tract No. Meter Nos. 2.970 1971 1972 1973 1974 19'15 _ 6385 205'72872 877S122 (9.82) 18.24 19.03. 16.51 6905 5350207 , 21214653 16239376 21214649 5371033 (11.24) 27.43 24.95 6996 19365699 19590883 19590888 19590889 (17.30) 25.21 22.88 19.51 20.38 •20.25 7052 20712468 ( ) 19.65 20.42 19590884 7082 19871950 19871951 19871952 4662673 9327369 37.10 33.73 26.69 34.33 29.94 7083 19590885 (4.33) 7.03 8.87. 7.65 8.85 8.61 7148 15326674 " 20132372, 20132374 20132375 MT MT 13.89 16.52 14.55 7166 20306223 20401001 26.95 23.34 27.69 25.70 7167 21214440 18.73 17.24 5350202 School 4969921 (9.89) 26.59 19.89 20.39 18.74 16.39 Park 4407993 23384413 46.70 58.88 60.52 62.19 38.62 22.27 Notes ( ) = Not a full year MT = Meter troubles fl N • • 13 Table 2. Depths of water applied to grass areas. Tract No. Acres Ia•76 of 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Ave. Ave. r-r: , ,uoNg Grass Feet Inches 6985 5.39 3.38 3.53 3.06 3.32 39.8 1.89! 22.7 6905 6.16 4.45 4.05 4.25 51.0 /•89122 7 6996 7.56 3.33 3.03 2.58 2.70 2.68 2.86 34.3 I ZZ7 7052 4.23 4.65 4.83 4.74' 56.9 4 /3�37•6 7082 6.89 5.38 4.90 3.87 4.98 4.35 4.70 56.4 2.6/ 31.3 7083 1.73 4.06 5.09 4.42 5.12 4.98 4.73 56.8 2.G8i52.2 7148 3.78 3.67 4.37 3.85 3.96 47.5 2 0 ! 2'!•d 7166 4.38 6.15 5.33' 6.32 5.86 5.92 71.0 4,68 5/0•2 7167 3.16 5.93 5.46 5•.70 68.4 2.8A 33. 7 School 6.22 4.27 3.20 3.28 3.01 2.64 3.28 39.4 Park 13.0 3.59 4.53 4.66 4.78 2.97•.1.71 3.38 40.6_.._ eYMAJDEC .�LCAiii•JC, . . Rainfall Irvine Coast Country Club 11.66 7.95 5.10 11.39 12.96 9.54 Note: Park watering started in 1965. Average is for the 10-year period 1966-75. Earlier years usage - in feet. 1966 - 3.78 1967 - 3.36 1968 - 2.58 1969 - 1.87 ' * 1975 Rainfall is for Corona del bear Automatic �Ie 1 August 31, 1976 ' rr•rr2r7t scp I 1«�f North Bluff Bay View rtew Wit; r of Community Association "' • �N' %;, 2635 Vista Ornada Newpq,t Beach, California Att,Antion: Mr. Brian Loftus, President Re: Over -watering of Landscaping in Tract Nos. 7166, 7167, 7052, 7082 and 7083 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that the current landscape watering practices of your Association result in the application of more water than is necessary to maintain the landscaping. There is substantial evidence that as a result of the over -watering, significant damage is being done to the natural bluffs adjacent to your tracts which threatens not only the stability of the bluffs themselves, but also the City's high pressure sewer line located in the bluffs and Back Bay Drive. These facts have been repeatedly brought to the attention of your Association and most recently confirmed by a report to the City of Newport Beach by John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist, dated June 1, 1976 which was discussed at a City Council Study Session on June 28, 1976. At that time, your Association was again made aware of this problem. The continued over -watering of the landscaped areas does create a public nuisance and a serious and substantial threat to both public and private property. We urge that your Association take every conceivable step to reduce the excess water consumption and usage for the maintenance of your landscaping. We request that you C'itt• I Iall • 8800 Newp i-t I3oule%•,i 1, Newl)ort Beach, C alifcrrni;f 9266:1 August 31, 1976 Page Two contact Mr. C. E. Hollon of the City's Community Development Department within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter, and submit to him the plan of action you intend to undertake to reduce the water consumption. If there are no definite indications that the water consumption is being drastically reduced, the matter will be further studied by this office to determine what legal remedies the City of Newport Beach might pursue to reduce the excess water consumption. We hope that you will work with and cooperate with the city staff in solving this problem for the benefit of your Association, the members thereof, and for the benefit of the public generally. To have a substantial slope failure due to excess watering with a resulting break in the City's sewer line would be a tragedy that no one wants to have happen and is a tragedy which can be easily averted through the judicious use of landscape water. We anticipate your cooperation in this regard. very truly yours, 4w; Od. DENNIS D. O'NEIL City Attorney DDO:yz cc: Mayor City Manager Public Works Director Community Development Director �� G 0 A)T. August 31, 1976 North Bluff VillaE Association Devine Properties, P.O. Box 687 Community Inc. Corona del Mar, California 92625 Attention: Tauno Koivisto, President Re: Over -watering of Landscaping in Tract No. 6905 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that the current landscape watering practices of your Association result in the application of more water than is necessary to maintain the landscaping. There is substantial evidence that as a result of the over -watering, significant damage is being done to the natural bluffs adjacent to your tract which threatens not only the stability of the bluffs themselves, but also the City's high pressure sewer line located in the bluffs and Back Bay Drive. These facts have been repeatedly brought to the attention of your Association and most recently confirmed by a report to the City of Newport Beach by John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist, dated June 1, 1976 which was discussed at a City Council Study Session on June 28, 1976. At that time, your Association was again made aware of this problem. The continued over -watering of the landscaped areas does create a public nuisance and a serious and substantial threat to both public and private property. We urge that your Association take every conceivable step to reduce the excess water consumption and usage for the maintenance of your landscaping. We request that you C'itp Ilall • 3;300 Newport Botdc%•.u-tl. Newport I3c-,wh, Cad lrnni❑ 92668 nuyusL 11 , ] 976 C.tgo Two contact Mr. C. E. Hollon of the City's Community Development Department within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter, and submit to him the plan of action you intend to undertake to reduce the water consumption. If there are no definite indications that the water consumption is being drastically reduced, the matter will be further studied by this office to determine what legal remedies the City of Newport Beach might pursue to reduce the excess water consumption. Lie hope that you will work with and cooperate with the city staff in solving this problem for the benefit of your Association, the members thereof, and for the benefit of the public generally. To have a substantial slope failure due to excess watering with a resulting break in the City's sewer line would be a tragedy that no one wants to have happen and is a tragedy which can be easily averted through the judicious use of landscape water. We anticipate your cooperation in this regard. Very truly yours, DENNIS D. O'NEIL City Attorney DDO:yz cc: Mayor City Manager Public Works Director Community Development Director 0 City Council Meeting August 9, 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 4, 1976 6(c)2 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Progress Report - Ground Water Study - North Bluffs Background On June 28, 1976, Dr. John Mann presented a report on a ground water study along the bluff above Back Bay Drive in the vicinity of Tract 7166Subsequently, the Departments of Community Development and Public Works were requested to 1.) send copies of the report to the affected homeowners associations for review and comment, 2.) prepare a "Comparison of Cost of Watering in the Bluffs Area" chart for use by the affected community associations and 3.) report back to the Council after the written comments had been received. Several written requests for comments were sent to the concerned homeowners associations, subsequent to your June 28, 1976 directions. In addition, the property management companies and the associations were contacted by phone and requested to forward their comments. Summary To date, only two (2) responses attached for your convenience. Management, Inc. verbally expre order to prepare long range pla and schedule. Mr. Krauter's fi 7166 and 7167 in conjunction wi Company. These tracts are the found during the study. Conclusion have been received and these are Mr. Krauter of Professional Community ssed his desire for additional time in ns for altering the irrigation system rm manages Tracts 7052, 7082,7083, th the O'Connell Landscape Maintenance principal areas where overwatering was The response to our requests for comments on the Dr. Mann report were somewhat less in volume and content than we had anticipated. It is suggested that any action by the City staff to correct the problem be delayed until October, 1976. This will provide the Community Associations (and their managers) with sufficient time to formulate and implement their plans to eliminate the overwatering. In addition, it will also enable the City staff to obtain an additional water billing cycle (2 months) for the association's landscape water meters. This should indicate whether the associations plans to reduce water application on their tracts has been effective or not. • TO: City Council -2- A progress report will be submitted to the Council at the Council Study Session October 26, 1976. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By E. HOLLON Engineering Geologist CEH:rw Attachments for City Council Only: Letter from Douglas J. Krauter dated August 2, 1976 Memo from PB & R dated 7-27-76 Letter to Associations, Irvine Company, PB&R dated 7-22-76 Letter to ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS DATED July 7, 1976, with attached memo from J. Devlin, Public Works Director, dated 6-30-76, and COMPARIOSN OF COST OF WATERING LAWNS IN NORTH BLUFFS AREA (1) Letter to John Webster, President, North Bluff Bay View C.A. and Earl Timmons, President, North Bluff Park C.A., dated 6-30-75 Letter to ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS dated June 25, 1976 Letter from Harbor Investment Company dated July 24, 1975 • 0 r- 'sop" W I I d PInVI '.I RI II •.III II 141 Ni WPORI RIM'II I Al If ORNIN 99660 August 2, 1976 Mr. C. E. Hollon Engi.nocring Geologist City of Newport Beach, City Hall 3300 NewpnrL Boulevard Newport- Boach, California 92660 Re: Ground Water. Study, North Bluff Dear Mr. Hollon: Reference your Letter of. July 7, 1976, and the mreting prior to that tame on June 28, 1976, concerning the report of Dr. John F. Mann, Jr., on this matter. At the June 28 meetLng the Council indicated that they desired a status report from your department_ for their July study session which was srL for July 26. In order that the Council may bo advised of your interest, the Board has risked me to furnish you the following information.. Through our auspices three qualifLed individuals in the area of sprinklers, irrigation and soil makeup have Qs.ited and inspected the designated areas of interest with the North Bluff Bay View Community Association. One of our Directors, an engineer, .is working with the Chairman of the Landscape Committee and they in turn are us.Lng the assistance of another resident who is very well versed in irrigation and water management. The contractors for landscape maintenance who h...ve the responsibility for the irrigation arc also involved in these meetings and the planning involved. PCM is working with them to assist in measuring use of water in such a manner as all of the previous opinion input may be used to develop an indepth position by the Board Director sr that• he may reach a sotutLon to the Association participation in a c:oor.o ra.ti.ve effort of solving this problom. Si.ncerel , Dougl s Krau ef, GPM Vice -President DJK:kt COUNSELING / MARKETING / PLANNING - CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS / REAL ESTATE BROKER M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION DEPARTMENT July 27, 1976 NZ TO: C. E. HOLLON, ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: PB & R Director Dutch, after receiving your memo of July 22, regarding the Ground Water Study of the North Bluffs area, I suspect that I am one of those who has not responded after reading the Report. Actually, I would have nothing to state regarding this problem other than that there is an apparent need to reduce water consumption wherever and however possible. After reading the Report, it appears we are on the border line of water consumption in Eastbluff Park and an effort should be made to minimize that water use. I don't believe, however, that in the last couple of years we have been guilty of excessive over -watering. I can offer no recommendations or suggestions in this matter, but if you feel there is something we can be doing other than watching our water consumption closely, I would be most happy to hear from you in this regard. CCS:h C rt 0 • CITY OF NEWPO ivr BEA(`I I CALIFORNIA mho city 11» ll 3300 Ninon Blvd. (71d)*7k,V kOx 640-2211 July 22, 1976 Bluffs Homeowners Association Eastbluff Apartment Owners Association Eastbluff Homeowners Association North Bluff Bay View Community Association North Bluff Park Community Association North Bluff Villa Community Association Plaza Homeowners Community Association John Sands, Irvine Company Parks, Beaches and Recreation SUBJECT: Final request for comments on the Ground Water Study of the North Bluffs area. On July 7, 1976, copies of the Ground !later Study for the North Bluffs area were transmitted to the various homeowners associations, requesting that these organizations review the "study" and forward their comments to this Department. To date, no comments -have been received. This lack of response has resulted in a postponement of our report on the matter to the City Council.until the first council meeting in August. If your homeowners association wishes to comment on the study or provide suggestions on how the problem can be resolved, please submit your comments not later than August 2, 1976. This will insure you that any items regarding the study will be included in our report to the Council. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOl , Assista t Director -Building gy t E. HOLLON, Engineering Geologist CITY OF Niimp ivr III4 JAC1 I CALIFORNIA 91660 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)167 IOX 640-2211 July 7, 1976 TO: ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS SUBJECT: Ground Water Study, North Bluffs As you will recall, on June 25, 1976, you were advised that the ground water study of the North Bluffs area, conducted by Dr. John F. Mann, Jr., would be presented to the City Council The City staff was also directed to transmit copies of this report to the various Community Associations. Attached hereto is a copy of the "Study" by Dr. J. Mann, Jr., for your review. Please forward any comments you may have to the Department of Community Development. Please transmit your comments as soon as possible for inclusion in the Department of Community Development report to Council on this matter. Also enclosed, you will find a chart comparing the cost of watering lawns in the North Bluff area. This chart was prepared by the Public Works Department to assist your association in developing the most economical landscape maintainance program for your community. Y C. E. HOLLON Engineering Geologist June 30, 1976 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attention: Mr. C. E. Hollon, Engineering Geologist FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: GROUNDWATER STUDY ALONG BLUFF ABOVE BACK BAY DRIVE IN VICINITY OF TRACT 7166 On June 28, 1976 the City Council received a groundwater study report from John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist. The report concluded that seepage from the bluffs adjacent to Tract 7166 was caused by overwatering of lawns in the Northbluff area. The attached tabulation, based on the Mann report, indicates that individual tracts could reduce the amount of water used for irriga- tion without harming the plantings.. The tabulation shows the highest quantity of water used by each tract in a recent year, the cost of the water, and the estimated annual savings to each tract if each applied only 40 inches (3.33 feet) of water per year to its lawn. The Mann study also indicates that the Eastbluff School, the Eastbluff Park, Tract 6885, and Tract 6996 are presently using less than 40 inches of water per year per acre of lawn. Joseph Tevlin Public W s Director LP: hh Att. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMPARISON OF COST OF WATERING LAWNS IN NORTH BLUFFS AREA(1) June 1976 Maximum Acre i; Acre Feet Possible ! Acres Depth of 1 Feet of ;!Recommended Annual Savings I of ' Water Water i Annual !;at 3.33 Ft. Annual 'At Cur- ' A_t Recom- Tract Year Grass Applied Used i Cost ; of Water Cost rent Rates! mended Rates(2' _ 6905 ° 1974 6.16 ' 4.45 27..41 $3224 20.51 $2413 $ 811 I $ 991 � 7052 :�' 1975 4.23 4.83 20.43 2403 !i 14.09 1657 746 912 l� i 7082 1971 I 6.89 5.38 37.07 3925(3� 22.94 2698 1227 1595 ! 7083 �� 1974 1.73 5.12 8.86 1042 i 5.76 677 364 445 7148 1974 3.78 1 4.37 16.52 1943 i 12.59 1480 � 463 i 566 i 7166 i 1974 4.38 6.32 i 27.68 3255 14.59 1715 1540 1882 7167 �i !! 1974 3.16 5.93 I 18.74 2204 10.52 1238 ! 966 1181 -i - - Notes: 1. This tabulation is based on the report "Tract 7166 Seepage Problem", by John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist, dated June 1, 1976. 2: The present basic water rate is $0.27 per hundred cubic feet, or $117.61 per acre-feet for the first 100,000 cubic feet per month per meter. The next 150,000 cubic feet per month per meter cost $0.22 per hundred cubic feet. The City is considering revising its water rate structure as follows: $0.33 per hundred cu. ft. for first 100,000 cu. ft. per month per meter $0.23 per " is it" all water over 100,000 cu. ft. per month per meter. 3. 100,000 cubic feet per month x 12 months = 27.55 acre feet per year. Tracts 6905 and 7166 seldom use enough water in a two -month period to qualify for the lower rate of $0.22 per hundred cubic feet ($95.83 per acre-foot). Tract 7082 uses enough water to qualify about 10 acre feet per year for the lower rate. CITY OF NLWPOICr BEACII CAUFOMIA John Webster, President North Bluff Bay View C. A. 436 Onda Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Earl Timmons, President North Bluff Park C. A. 400 Vista Trucha Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 92660 City Hall 3300 NewportBlyd. (714)tiA3 M 640-2211 June 30, 1975 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING AND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE Gentlemen: During the past several months personnel from the Community Development and Public Works Departments have examined your green belt areas as well as the perimeter slopes along Back Bay Drive. Spring activity has been noticeable for sometime in one particular area along the slope adjacent to Back Bay Drive below Tract 7082. Recently, the flows from this springs area increased and the bank began to fail. The failure began to accelerate rapidly over the weekend of June 21-22, 1975, jeopardizing the community sewer. line which services your area. As a result, the City directed The Irvine Company to make temporary repairs to arrest the slide's progress. These repairs were performed on an emergency basis on June 25 & 26, 1975. In addition, City personnel checked the underground utilities in the area for leaks and to date no failure has been detected. In our opinion, excessive landscaping water has been a major contributor to this slope instability. The geologic conditions beneath this community will provide for a rise in the water table or a perched water table whenever the soil infiltration rate exceeds plant usage, evaporation and runoff in the landscaped areas. • TO: C.A. - North Bluff page 2 We are requesting that your Community Association reduce the watering of the landscaped areas immediately. This reduction in water usage will help protect you from a slope failure which could result in a break in -your community sewer line. Attached, for your convenier}ce, is a Landscaping Maintenance Guide prepared for Orange County by Mr. Fred Long, Landscape Architect. Although the "Guide" is several years old, the theory of landscaping of engineered slopes, such as those in your com- munity, are still valid. If we can assist you in any way, please feel free to call on us. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOWLER, Assistant Director -Building By! . E. HOLLON Engineering Geologist Attch BF:CEH:rw xc: Irvine Company Professional Community Management Public Works Department Director-Com. Dev. Department Harbor Investments 0 r' 0 • CITY OF NEWPOIZ'r BEACI I CALIFORNIA w60 City hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)167t 010 640-2211 June 25, 1976 TO: ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS SUBJECT: !dater Seepage Problems in the North Bluffs Area You are cordially invited to attend the Newport Beach City Council Study Session on Monday, June 28, 1976, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. At that time, Dr. John F. Mann, Jr. will present his findings and conclusions on the water seepage problem in the North Bluffs area of the City. Subsequent to this presentation, the various Homeowners Associ- ations will be asked to review copies of Dr. Mann's report and forward any comments they may have to the City Staff. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB F014L Assistant Director -Building By C. E. HOLLON, Engineering Geologisf� CEH:rw 7 the 8!U HOMEOWNERS' COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Chet Purcell Manager (714) 644.1784 fV 1: Harbor Investnicnt Company Hl:AI IiS'1'A'I'I+, SAIX8 / MANA(;IiMI:N'I' Since 1944 July 24, 1975 O.r 4O T 1• Mr. Bob Fowler Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Fowler: Thank you for your letter dated June 30, 1975 describing the danagers inherent in over -watering the association areas we manage. Your letter and attachments have been reviewed by our landscape -maintenance division and they have taken the following corrective action. The North Bluff Park Community Association area has been revaluated from a water coverage stand -point and additional sprinklers have been added where we previously used long time cycles to accomplish adequate coverage. Secondly, the clocks themselves have been altered to that we water more frequently with a shorter duration. We feel that the combination of the additional sprinklers, with the more frequent watering at shorter intervals will accomplish the needed objectives without adversely effecting the appearance of the greenbelts or the planted areas. We hope that these solutions will meet with your approval. If you have any questions concerning the techniques used, please feel free to contact the new General Manager of our Landscape -Maintenance Division, Mr. George Moore, at our Airport site, 714-979-8582. Very tr y yours, HARB VESTM MPANY, INC. Pro y Man a D' Thomas L. Stevens Association Manager TLS/lc 2066 EAST COAST HIGHWAY POST OFFICE BOX 687 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 714-673-4400 714-540.6933 • C, J ORDINANCE. NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 14.16.070 DEFINING CERTAIN CONSERVATION AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE USAGE OF WATER AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO LIMIT THE WATER SUPPLY OF CERTAIN EXCESSIVE USERS WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is vitally concerned regarding the conservation of water and energy; and WHEREAS, the transport, distribution and use of water in the City of Newport Beach requires the use of large amounts of energy; and WHEREAS, the excess use and waste of water consti- tutes a waste of valued natural resource and a waste of energy; and WHEREAS, the excessive use of water, under certain circumstances, can result in creation of a public nuisance and threat to public and private property; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City, and the citizens of the City of Newport Beach, to delegate to the City Manager certain powers to permit him to limit the wasting of water and the use of water in such a fashion as to create a public nuisance or threat to public or private property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 14.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 14.16.070 thereto to read as follows: 1114.16.070. Special Regulations Regarding the Restriction of Use of Water. The City Manager of the City of Newport Beach, in the event of a finding by him that a water user is wasting water, placing an excessive demand on the system, or using the water in such a manner as to create a public nuisance or a threat to public or private property, is hereby granted the power to restrict the usage of water by such a water user or, should conditions become necessary, to terminate the water usage by such a water user for the benefit of and in the best interest of the City." SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced'at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the day of , 1976 and adopted on the day of , 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: NOES, COUNCILMEN: ABSENT COUNCILMEN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk HRC:yz 9/2/76 CITY OF NEWP,ORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 10, 1976 TO: DICK HOGAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: GROUND WATER STUDY - NORTH BLUFFS During the Study Session of August 9th, the City Council reviewed Dutch Hollon's report on the status of the ground water study in the North Bluffs. The Council requested two things: (1) that the City write the homeowners associations another letter indicating possible reduction of water by the City if the homeowners associations do not cooperate, and (2) that the City Attorney prepare a report indicating what authority, if any, the City has to reduce water flows to some homeowners associations. It would be appreciated if you would administer the above two requests and be prepared to report to the Council on September 13. P`u ROBERT L. WYNN cc: Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney File RLW:ib 11--elwe,47je J ll �� lov�� T�Q a f (a ellS, cX ee4 RRCety� / CU.r.nlvn)j—U dCYcfW aerq •�/ V FLU(, i AUG 1 0W60�-' CttY CiA NEWpo&. �.Co ` Ch7Jfi .•11- 1 • 0 City Council Meeting August 9,_1976 Study Session Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. August 4, 1976 6(c)2 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Progress Report - Ground Water Study - North Bluffs Background On June 28, 1976, Dr. John Mann presented a report on a ground water study along the bluff above Back Bay Drive in the vicinity of Tract, 7166. Subsequently, the Departments of Community Development and Public Works were requested to 1.) send copies of the report to the affected homeowners associations for review and comment, 2.) prepare a "Comparison of Cost of Watering in the Bluffs Area" chart for use by the affected community associations and 3.) report back to the Council after the written comments had been received. Several written requests for comments were sent to the concerned homeowners associations, subsequent to your June 28, 1976 directions In addition, the property management companies and the associations were contacted by phone and requested to forward their comments. Summary To date, only two (2) responses have been received and these are attached for your convenience. Mr. Krauter of Professional Community Management, Inc. verbally expressed his desire for additional time in order to prepare long range plans for altering the irrigation system and schedule. Mr. Krauter's firm manages Tracts 7052, 7082,7083, 7166 and 7167 in conjunction with the O'Connell Landscape Maintenance Company. These tracts are the principal areas where overwatering was found during the study. Conclusion The response to our requests for comments on the Dr. Mann report were somewhat less in volume and content than we had anticipated. It is suggested that any action by the City staff to correct the problem be delayed until October, 1976. This will provide the Community Associations (and their managers) with sufficient time to formulate and implement their plans to eliminate the overwatering. In addition, it will also enable the City staff to obtain an additional water billing cycle (2 months) for the association's landscape water meters. This should indicate whether the associations plans to reduce water application on their tracts has been effective or not. r • • TO City Council -2- A progress report will be submitted to the Council at the Council Study Session October 26, 1976. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By ' E. HOLLON Engineering Geologist CEH:rw Attachments for City Council Only: Letter from Douglas J. Krauter dated August 2, 1976 Memo from PB & R dated 7-27-76 Letter to Associations, Irvine Company, PB&R dated 7-22-76 Letter to ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS DATED July 7, 1976, with attached memo from J. Devlin, Public Works Director, dated 6-30-76 and COMPARIOSN OF COST OF WATERING LAWNS IN NORTH BLUFFS AREA (1) Letter to John Webster, President, North Bluff Bay View C.A. and Earl Timmons, President, North Bluff Park C.A., dated 6-30-75 Letter to ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS dated June 25, 1976 Letter from Harbor Investment Company dated July 24, 1975 • I V.I 110VI tl Rf I Hll if 710, NI WPORI MACII cmirORNIA 97660 August 2, 1976 Mr. C. E. Holton Engineering Geologist City of. Newport Beach, City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Ground Water Study, North Bluff Dear Mr. Hollon: Roference your letter of July 7, 1976, :Ind Lhc m1�etLng prLor to that time on June 28, 1976, concerning the report of Dr. John F. Mann, Jr., on this matter. At the June 28 meeting the Council indicated that they desired a status report from your department for their JuLy study session which was set for July 26. In order that the Council may be advised of your interest, the Board has asked me to furnish you the following information. Through our auspices three qualified individuals in the area of sprinklers, irrigation and soil makeup have visited and inspected the designated areas of interest with the North Bluff Bay View Community Association. One of our Directors, an engineer, is working with the Chairman of the Landscape Committee and they in turn are using the assistance of another resident who is very well versed in irrigation and water management. The contractors for landscape maintenance who have the responsibility for the irrigation are also involved in these meetings and the planning involved. PCM is working with them to assist in measuring use of water in such a manner as all of the previous opinion input may be used to develop an indepth position by the Board Director so that he may reach a solution to the Association's participation in a cooperative effort of solving this problem, Sinncerel , Dougi�s . Krau� PM Vice -President DJK:kl COUNSELING / MARKETING / PLANNING - CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS / REAL ESTATE BROKER l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION DEPARTMENT July 27, 1976 \ T0: C. E. HOLLON, ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: PB & R Director ~ �J Dutch, after receiving your memo of July 22, regarding the Ground Water Study of the North Bluffs area, I suspect that I am one of those who has not responded after reading the Report. Actually, I would have nothing to state regarding this problem other than that there is an apparent need to reduce water consumption wherever and however possible. After reading the Report, it appears we are on the border line of water consumption in Eastbluff Park and an effort should be made to minimize that water use. I don't believe, however, that in the last couple of years we have been guilty of excessive over -watering. I can offer no recommendations or suggestions in this matter, but if you feel there is something we can be doing other than watching our water consumption closely, I would be most happy to hear from you in this regard. C CCS:h rt CITY OF NLWPOIZT BEACI I CALIFORNIA 92660 City I1811 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)*7k;4 W 640-2211 July 22, 1976 Bluffs Homeowners Asso.ciation Eastbluff Apartment Owners Association Eastbluff Homeowners Association North Bluff Bay View Community Association North Bluff Park Community Association North Bluff Villa Community Association Plaza Homeowners Community Association John Sands, Irvine Company Parks, Beaches and Recreation SUBJECT: Final request for comments on the Ground Water Study of the North Bluffs area. On July 7, 1976, copies of the Ground !-later Study for the North Bluffs area were transmitted to the various homeowners associations, requesting that these organizations review the "study" and forward their comments to this Department. To date, no comments have been received. This lack of response has resulted in a postponement of our report on the matter to the City Council until the first council meeting in August. If your homeowners association wishes to comment on the study or provide suggestions on how the problem can be resolved, please submit your comments not later than August 2, 1976. This will insure you that any items regarding the study will be included in our report to the Council. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOl , Assista t Director -Building -a9tow- 4( gy t E. HOLLON, Engineering Geologist CITY OF NEWPORT B , ACII CALIFORNIA 92660 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714):67"IOX 640-2211 July 7, 1976 TO: ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS SUBJECT: Ground Water Study, North Bluffs As you will recall, on June 25, 1976, you were advised that the ground water study of the North Bluffs area, conducted by Dr. John F. Mann, Jr., would be presented to the City Council The City staff was also directed to transmit copies of this report to the various Community Associations. Attached hereto is a copy of the "Study" by Dr. J. Mann, Jr., for your review. Please forward any comments you may have to the Department of Community Development. Please transmit your comments as soon as possible for inclusion in the Department of Community Development report to Council on this matter. Also enclosed, you will find a chart comparing the cost of watering lawns in the North Bluff area. This chart was prepared by the Public Works Department to assist your association in developing the most economical landscape maintainance program for your community. C. E. ALLON Engineering Geologist June 30, 1976 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attention: Mr. C. E. Hollon, Engineering Geologist FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: GROUNDWATER STUDY ALONG BLUFF ABOVE BACK BAY DRIVE IN VICINITY OF TRACT 7166 On June 28, 1976 the City Council received a groundwater study report from John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist. The report concluded that seepage from the bluffs adjacent to Tract 7166 was caused by overwatering of lawns in the Northbluff area. The attached tabulation, based on the Mann report, indicates that individual tracts could reduce the amount of water used for irriga- tion without harming the plantings. The tabulation shows the highest quantity of water used by each tract in a recent year, the cost of the water, and the estimated annual savings to each tract if each applied only 40 inches (3.33 feet) of water per year to its lawn. The Mann study also indicates that the Eastbluff School, the Eastbluff Park, Tract 6885, and Tract 6996 are presently using less than 40 inches of water per ,year per acre of lawn. Joseph T evlin Public W s Director I�LP: hh Att. Z' RF b'� r I'' NF�HUrrr 0/' j c o,� 6� �\� A<r�aeA�H �� i _ Tract A Year a 6905 1974 7052 ;I 1975 7082 1971 7083 I 1974 7148 II 1974 7166 jI 1974 7167 �� 1974 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMPARISON OF COST OF WATERING LAWNS IN NORTH BLUFFS AREA(1) June 1976 i Maximum Acre !! Acre Feet Possible Acres Depth of Feet of i 'Recommended Annual _Savings - ,-At-Cur- of ` Water Water I Annual flat 3.33 Ft. Annual _ At-Recom- Grass - Applied - Used i Cost il of Water Cost rent Ratesi mended Rates(2• _ 6.16 4.45 27..41 $3224 �I' 20.51 $2413 $ 811 ! $ 991 4.23 4.83 20.43 2403 Ii 14.09 1657 746 912 6.89 5.38 37.07 3925(3} 22.94 2698 1227 1595 1.73 5.12 8.86 1042 III 5.76 677 364 445 ! 3.78 4.37 16.52 1943 ; 12.59 1480 463 566 4.38 6.32 27.68 3255 14.59 1715 1540 1882 3.16 5.93 18.74 2204 10.52 123E I , tI 966 1181 - L Notes: 1. This tabulation is based on the report "Tract 7166 Seepage Problem", by John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist, dated June 1, 1976. 2. The present basic water rate is $0.27 per hundred cubic feet, or $117.61 per acre-feet for the first 100,000 cubic feet per month per meter. The next 150,000 cubic feet per month per meter cost $0.22 per hundred cubic -feet. The City is considering revising its water rate structure as follows: $0.33 per hundred cu. ft. for first 100,000 cu. ft. per month per meter $0.23 per " " to It all water over 100,000 cu. ft. per month per meter. 3. 100,000 cubic feet per month x 12 months = 27.55 acre feet per year. Tracts 6905 and 7166 seldom use enough water in a two -month period to qualify for the lower rate of $0.22 per hundred cubic feet ($95.83 per acre-foot). Tract 7082 uses -enough water to qualify about 10 acre feet per year for the lower rate. E CITY OF NLWPOR r BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 City hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (na)Mb" 640-2211 June 30, 1975 John Webster, President North Bluff Bay View C. A. 436 Onda Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Earl Timmons, President North Bluff Park C. A. 400 Vista Trucha Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING AND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE Gentlemen: During the past several months personnel from the Community Development and Public Works Departments have examined your green belt areas as well as the perimeter slopes along Back Bay Drive. Spring activity has been noticeable for sometime in one particular area along the slope adjacent to Back Bay Drive below Tract 7082. Recently, the flows from this springs area increased and the bank began to fail. The failure began to accelerate rapidly over the weekend of June 21-22, 1975, jeopardizing the community sewer. line which services your area. As a result, the City directed The Irvine Company to make temporary repairs to arrest the slide's progress. These repairs were performed on an emergency basis on June 25 & 26, 1975. In addition, City personnel checked the underground utilities in the area for leaks and to date no failure has been detected. In our opinion, excessive landscaping water has been a major contributor to this slope instability. The geologic conditions beneath this community will provide for a rise in the water table or a perched water table whenever the soil infiltration rate exceeds plant usage, evaporation and runoff in the landscaped areas. TO: C.A. - North Bluff page 2 We are requesting that your Community Association reduce the watering of the landscaped areas immediately. This reduction in water usage will help protect you from a slope failure which could result in a break in your community sewer line. Attached, for your convenience, is a Landscaping Maintenance Guide prepared for Orange County by Mr. Fred Long, Landscape Architect. Although the "Guide" is several years old, the theory of landscaping of engineered slopes, such as those in your com- munity, are still valid. If we can assist you in any way, please feel free to call on us. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOWLER, Assistant Director -Building By ` l C. E. HOLLON Engineering Geologist Attch BF:CEH:rw xc: Irvine Company Professional Community Management Public Works Department Director-Com. Dev. Department Harbor Investments CITY OF NLWPOIZT BEACII CALIFORNIA 92660 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)t573)Z110 640-2211 June 25, 1976 TO: ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS SUBJECT: Water Seepage Problems in the North Bluffs Area You are cordially invited to attend the Newport Beach City CouncilStudy Session on Monday, June 28, 1976, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. At that time, Dr. John F. Mann, Jr. will present his findings and conclusions on the water seepage problem in the North Bluffs area of the City. Subsequent to this presentation, the various Homeowners Associ- ations will be asked to review copies of Dr. Mann's report and forward any comments they may have to the City Staff. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOB FOWL Assistant Director -Building By • t t lR;�E�G�� _ C. E. HOLLOW, Engineering Geologist CEH:rw i y the lu ,6 HOMEOWNERS' COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Chet Purcell Manager (714) 644.1784 Harbor Investment Company REAL IiS'I•A'1•Ii SAID{S / MANACI?M1iN'I' Since 1944 July 24, 1975 Mr. Bob Fowler Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear ,Mr. Fowler: Thank you for your letter dated June 30, 1975 describing the danagers inherent in over -watering the association areas we manage. Your letter and attachments have been reviewed by our landscape -maintenance division and they have taken the following corrective action. The North Bluff Park Community Association area has been revaluated from a water coverage stand -point and additional sprinklers have been added where we previously used Tong time cycles to accomplish adequate coverage. Secondly, the clocks themselves have been altered to that we water more frequently with a shorter duration. We feel that the combination of the additional sprinklers, with the more frequent watering at shorter intervals will accomplish the needed objectives without adversely effecting the appearance of the greenbelts or the planted areas. We hope that these solutions will meet with your approval. If you have any questions concerning the techniques used, please feel free to contact the new General Manager of our Landscape -Maintenance Division, Mr. George Moore, at our Airport site, 714-979-8582. Very tr "y yours, HARB VEST MPANY, INC. Pro y Man a Di Thomas L. Stevens Association Manager TLS/lc 2865 EAST COAST HIGHWAY • POST OFFICE BOX 687 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 714-673.4400 714-540-6933 COUNCILMEN Taw coo aF CI19 of NEWPORT 6E4CH MINUTES 3 •,� y an ROLL CALL O a f -y T Z 11Nvcn J 1976 3. Council Policy A-9, "City Council Committees," was Council Motion x amended to establish rules and regulations regarding Cmte Ayes x1x x x x x advisory committee meetings. Policy 4� A report was presented from the Parks., Beaches and Ensign �g reation Director regarding the Master Plan of by the Parks, Beaches and View Park Ensi View Park as adopted Re_reatI Commission. Motion The Master Plan of`Ensign View Park was set for public Ayes C K x x x x x hearing on July 26, 1�76 5. The request of Sterling Ball fo ccess from 15th Street Modifi- Street to an existing garage at 3411 fifteenth cation was presented. Request A report was presented from the Public Works Dire or. Motion The request for access from 15th Street was approved. Ayes ck,xxxxx 6. A report from the Public Works Director and the Eastbluff Director of Community Development was presented re- Drainage garding the groundwater study along the bluff above Back Bay Drive in the vicinity of Tract No. 7166. Motion x The report was accepted; and the staff was directed to. Ayes x x x x send copies to the affected homeowner's associations for review and comment and to report back to Council after the written comments have been received. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Development illside Department with recommendations from the Environmental Dev Stds Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee and the Council Planning Commission regarding Hillside Developmen Policy Standards. Motion Council Policy K-7, "Hillside Development tandards," Ayes x x x x x was amended in accordance with the remnendations of c� the Environmental Quality Control CI zens Advisory Committee and the revision recomm tided by the Planning Commission. 2. Boards and Commission Appa ntments: Boards & Comsn Letters were presente from the following expressing Appoint - their willingness,to continue to serve on their ments respective Board for Commission: Gary B. Lovell, Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission; John J. McKerren and W. Jay -Moseley, III, Civil Service Board; and Howard HMorgridge, City Arts Commission. Motion Coui4ziiman Kuehn made a motion to continue the Board Ayes x x and Commission appointments to July 12, which motion x Noes x x x Y/failed to carry. Motion Councilman McInnis made a motion to approve the r' following appointments: Volume 30 - Page 155 r June 28, 1976 STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-6 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works department and Department of Community Development SUBJECT: GROUNDWATER STUDY ALONG BLUFF ABOVE BACKBAY DRIVE IN VICINITY OF TRACT 7166 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept the report. 2. Direct staff to send copies to the affected homeowner's associations for review and written comment. 3. Direct staff to report back to City Council after the written comments have been received. DISCUSSION: On March 8, 1976 the City Council authorized the hiring of John F. Mann, Jr., Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist, to perform a groundwater study on a portion of the bluff along Backbay Drive in the vicinity of Tract 7166. The study was prepared for the purpose of determining the source of the surfacing groundwater along the face of the bluff. The report con- cludes that the groundwater problem is due to over irrigation of the lands- caped areas lying above the bluff. Dr. Mann will attend the June 28, 1976 study session and make a brief presentation regarding the findings in his report. Members of the Eastbluff Homeowner's Association will be invited to attend. Copies of the report are attached for Council members. •121S. ep T Devlin lic rks Director D:hh a Directo of Commu ty Development JOHN F. MANN, JR. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST AND HYDROLOGIST 945 REPOSADO DRIVE LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA 90631 TELEPHONE OWEN 7-9604 June 1, 1976 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Sirs: I am pleased to submit herewith my report on the source and mechanism of movement of the ground water which is surfacing along the Bluff above Back Bay•Drive in the vicinity of Tract 7166. The source of the water creating instability of the slope is related to the over -watering of lawn areas in the North Bluff area. This conclusion is supported by evidence of water applications to the lawns on some tracts far in excess of evapotranspiration requirements. It is further supported by chemical similarity between the fertilizer -bearing irrigation water and the seepage water. That water applied in excess of consumptive requirements of the grass moves vertically downward through sandy terrace materials until it reaches the surface cut on hard impermeable sandstone where it forms a mound on the water table. The ground water then rides laterally along the sandstone surface and exits along the Bluff at the base of the terrace sands. Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates, in early 1969, as part of their original geologic studies for 'the proposed North Bluff development reported that they observed no evidence of gross geologic instability within the site. Thus the present instability is directly related to the heavy over -watering of the last few years. This assignment has been a challenging one, and I would like to acknowledge the excellent cooperation of Mr. Cecil Hollon and of Mr. William B. Dye and his staff during the course of this study. very truly yours, / ohn F. Mann,' Jr; Al i- JFM:ae TRACT 7166 SEEPAGE PROBLEM John F. Mann, Jr. Consulting Geologist and Hydrologist June 1, 1976 General Geology The basic mapping of geologic conditions in the North Bluff area was done by geologists of the United States Geolo- gical Survey for a 1957 map (Reference 1). The geology beneath the North Bluff area is relatively simple. As exposed on the Bluff above Back Bay Drive, there is a lower hard sandstone designated by the authors as Tus, unnamed sandstone. It is described as a light gray massive fine-grained sandstone with limy concretions in some of the beds. The geologic age is given as Pliocene and early Pleistocene (?). These beds strike gene- rally east and have a low angle of dip to the north (toward the bay). The top surface of the unnamed sandstone is a marine -cut terrace, which in the vicinity of Tracts 7082 and 7166 appears to have been tilted to the east; thus, the top of the marine - cut terrace is at a lower elevation beneath Tract 7166 than beneath Tract 7082. On top of the marine -cut terrace, and lying unconform- ably upon it, is a series of loose sands with a maximum thick- ness of about 60 feet. Vedder, Yerkes and Schoellhamer have designated this as Qtn -- marine terrace deposits with a non - marine cover. The original geologic report for the entire North Bluff development was prepared by Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates, and dated June 25, 1969 (Reference 2). The 0 0 2 following notations were made prior to any grading or artificial water application: "Two major areas of seepage were observed at the base of the cliff and lesser slopes adjacent to Back Bay Drive: A 100-foot portion of the cliff below the western tract boundary and a 1400 foot long zone along the broad recess north of the tract boundary. Seepage is evidenced by standing water in the roadside gutter and is marked by a lush growth of trees and shrubs." The problem area below Tract 7166 falls within the 1400-foot long section described above. Reference to pre - development aerial photographs will confirm the presence of such a line of vigorously growing trees prior to the develop- ment of Tracts 7082 and 7166. This line of trees was histori- cally nourished by rainfall (in very wet years) moving verti- cally downward until'it reached the surface eroded on the im= permeable unnamed sandstone, then moving laterally (to the,north) until it was able to reach the edge of the Bluff. The Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates study in- volved the drilling of 27 bucket auger holes, ranging in depth from 10 to 47 feet. Only one boring (#21, on Tract 7052) reached the sandstone -- at a depth of 27 feet. The drilling revealed a good picture of the terrace sands, as described: "The Bluff is everywhere mantled by Quaternary terrace deposits of terrestrial and marine origin. They are composed of reddish brown clean to silty sands ranging from fine to coarse grained with various degrees of sorting. Sea shells and interstratified gravels are common. The color is due to oxidation of iron -bearing minerals that has strengthened the steep inclination of weathered cliff exposures by iron oxide cementation. Exposed thicknesses range from 10 to 50 feet. The max- imum estimated thickness is 60 feet at the northeast central area. Although poorly developed stratification is present, terrace deposits are considered massive. The terrace -bedrock contact on the cliff or slopes is marked by a break -in -slope, indicating the degree of natural compaction or cementation is less for the superposed sands." LI 3 Few evidences of saturated zones were found in drilling the terrace deposits. Boring #1 near Eastbluff Road encountered some seepage at a depth of 39 feet, beneath 35 feet of fill. Boring #18 (on Tract 6996) encountered some seepage at 5.5 feet within a fine silty sand; beneath was a clayey silty sand upon which this water apparently was perched. The lack of extensive perching was surprising, as the drilling was done in late Feb- ruary and March of 1969, following two of the heaviest rainfall months of recent years. The contact between the terrace sands and the sandstone in the problem area below Tract 7166 can not be seen as it is covered by terrace sands which have slipped and/or been eroded. However, a storm drain failed by erosion just below the boundary between Tracts 7082 and 7166, and was later repaired. The cross- section showing the repaired and compacted backfill suggests that the compacted backfill was keyed to the sandstone at an elevation of about 20 feet above sea level (Reference 3). Figure 1 (attached) shows diagrammatically the geologic conditions along a north -south line between Tracts 7082 and 7166. Consumptive Use of Grass Most of the water delivered to the North Bluff tracts is used for irrigation of grass. This is delivered through special meters and billed to the community associations. Water delivered to the homes is primarily for inside use and reaches the City's sewage treatment plant via City sewers. Grass is capable of using by evapotranspiration (conversion from liquid to vapor form) only a certain amount of water. Water delivered in excess of these consumptive use FIGURE I - GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS BENEATH NORTH BLUFF QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS BACK BAY UNNAMED SANDSTONE 0 • s (or evapotranspiration) requirements must either run off as surface flow or percolate through the root zone to the water table. The Quaternary terrace sands underlying the North Bluff tracts have a very high permeability. Most building pads are on cut surfaces, and any original soil has been removed. Because of the high permeability of the terrace sands, very little excess irrigation water runs off; essentially all excess irrigation water will percolate to the water table. Lighter rainfalls will enter the soil zone and be available for consump- tive use by the grass. Rain entering the soil in excess of the soil's water -holding capacity will continue to move downward and reach the water table. Only high intensity rains will cause runoff. To test the suggestion that there has been over -irriga- tion in the North Bluff tracts, it is necessary to compare the consumptive requirements of the grass with the metered deliveries. Almost all the lawns in the North Bluff tracts are blue grass (David T. Fennell, Landscape Planner, personal communication). Climatic Factors In considering the consumptive use of water by grass (or any crop) it is necessary to use examples from a similar climate. In a recent publication (Reference 4) the California Department of Water Resources has divided the state into zones of similar evaporative demand. Newport Beach falls within Zone 9 -- South Coast, Coastal Valleys and Plains, which extends along the coast from San Diego to Point Conception. Plate 1 of that publication is a map of California showing contours of 0 • annual evaporative demand N For Newport•Beach, the annual evapo- rative demand would be about 55 inches. A note on Plate 1 reads as follows: "Annual potential evapotranspiration of grass may be estimated by multiplying evaporative demand as shown by 0..8." Thus, grass in the Newport Beach area should consume about 44 inches (vertical depth) of water per year. Some of the annual rainfall is available for use by the grass, and to the extent the rainfall is used by the grass for evapotranspiration, the amount of water which should be delivered to supply the evapo- transpirative demands would be reduced. on page 43, Table 31 (Reference 4), the estimated applied water for improved pasture in Zone 9 is 3.4 feet, or 41 inches. Pasadena Experiments In conjunction with safe yield calculations in the Raymond Basin (Reference 5) grass was grown in 8 tanks buried in the ground. The applied water was metered and any water which passed through the soil was collected at the bottom of the tanks and measured. The difference was the amount actually used consumptively by the grass. The varieties used were a mixture of perennial rye and blue grass. Several of the tanks were taken over by Bermuda grass, but no difference was noted in water use between the planted grass and the Bermuda grass. All were kept in a luxuriant condition. Measurements were made over a 16-month period from June 1939 through September 1940. In the 6 tanks considered representative, consumptive use ave- raged close to 42.8 inches per year. Although considered within Zone 9 by the Department of Water Resources (Reference 4), the 0 9 consumptive use of grass should be somewhat higher in Pasadena than in Newport Beach. Pershing Square Experiments (Reference 6) Pershing Square is a park area in downtown Los Angeles which was built over a subterranean garage. The well-defined lawn area was developed on 3 feet of top soil which was placed on the asphalt -sealed concrete roof of the garage. The principal type of grass grown was classified as an Everglade No. III variety. The soil was drained by an agricultural tile drainage system which discharged to a manhole where the drainage water could be measured. Surface drainage was collected and measured 'separately. The area of grass was determined accurately. Over a two-year period from November 1960 to November 1962, the amount of water used for sprinkling the grass, the amount of rainfall, and the amount of water which moved through the soil and into the drainage system was measured. From this study, the following average annual values were obtained: Applied water, in feet 3.31 Precipitation, in feet 1.01. Total 4.32 Drainage water (corrected for small seepage flow from flower beds), in feet 1.28 Measured consumptive use 3.04 (feet) The measured consumptive use was thus about 36.5 inches of depth per year. Any additional water applied by the sprinklers would have increased the amount of the drainage water. N Goleta Studies (Reference 7) Goleta is located in California Department of Water Resources Zone 9 just west of Santa Barbara. For six golf courses, grass acreages were accurately measured and metered water deliveries were available for periods ranging from one to 4 1/2 years. Actual water deliveries ranged from 30.02 to 37.46 inches per year. Average irrigation requirements were considered to'be close to 34 inches of depth per year. South Coast Field Station Experiments The most elaborate and detailed studies of turfgrass in California have been conducted at the South Coast Field Station of the University of California near E1 Toro'si.nce 1966. Consumptive use values derived here should be applicable to Newport Beach with little or no modification. The earliest published results of these experiments were covered in a paper by Dr. Albert W. Marsh in 1970 (Reference 8). in the initial tests from 1966 to 1969, warm season grasses (Bermuda and St. Augustine) were used. Five different irrigation treatments were used: 1. Automatic irrigation when a tensiometer at either a 6-inch depth or a 12-inch depth reached 15 centibars. 2. Automatic irrigation when a tensiometer at either a 6-inch depth or a 12-inch depth reached 40 centibars. 3. Automatic irrigation when a tensiometer at either a 6-inch depth or a 12-iftch depth reached 65 centibars. 4. Manual irrigation based on evaporation measurements. 5. Manual irrigation to simulate that of local turf managers. A tensiometer is a,porous cup buried in the soil which measures how dry the soil is, or how much suction the plant roots must 0 A E use to get moisture out of the soil. A bar is one atmosphere of pressure (or suction) and a centibar is a hundredth of a bar. The higher the centibar reading the drier the soil. Thus, if the automatic sprinklers came on at 15 centibars', the soil would be kept moist continuously. But at a 65-centibar setting, the soil would be allowed to get very dry before.the sprinklers came on. Method 4 involves the measurement (usually daily) of the evaporation loss from a 6-foot diameter pan buried so that its top is almost flush with the ground surface. The amount of water used to irrigate the grass (in inches of depth) is equal to about 87 per cent of the measured depth of evaporation in the summer, and about 75 per cent of the measured evaporation minus rainfall during the fall, winter, and spring months. The water applied under Method 5 was based on a study of practices used by commercial turf managers in adjacent parts of Orange County. The results presented by Dr. Marsh for the year 1968 are as follows: Water Application in Inches Method Bermuda St. Augustine 1 38.13 33.15 2 30.96 27.43 3 26.94 26.10 4 39.32 39.32 5 42.89 42.89 Dr. Marsh concluded that even with the driest method of operation (#3) there was no important build-up of salts in the soil and there was some degree of leaching early tests appears in Reference 9. Further information on these .0 0 W After three years of tests with the warm season grasses, in 1969 the test plots were replaced with cool season grasses -- tall fescue and bluegrass. The same five methods of irrigation were used, with somewhat lower centibar settings for Methods .2 and 3. The results of the tests on the cool season grasses have not yet been published. However, tentative results were obtained from an interview with Dr. Albert W. Marsh at the University of California,at Riverside on Mav 10, 1976. Using the commercial irrigation procedures (Method 5), applied water on bluegrass was higher than for the warm season grasses, but the highest values obained under any method was about 48 inches. Water Delivered for Lawn Irrigation Meter records of water delivered for.lawn irrigation were obtained for the entire period of record for the nine North Bluff tracts, the elementary school, and Eastbluff Park. This area was considered to be the one most likely to influence the seepage below Tract 7166. All of the water for lawn irri- gation in the North Bluff tracts is delivered through special meters and the charges are.billed to three community associations. The school and Eastbluff Park have separate meters. The earliest irrigation was at Eastbluff Park and started in 1965. In the tracts, irrigation of the lawns started in 1970, or later, as each was finished. Table 1 lists the amounts of water in acre-feet which was delivered each year to each of the tracts, the school and -the park. The acre-foot is the unit of water volume most often used in hydrologic studies. It is the volume of water which will cover one acre to a depth of one foot -- or 325,"851 gallons. 11 Table 1. Water delivered for lawn irrigation in acre-feet per year. Tract No. Meter Nos. 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 6385 20572872 8778122 (9.82) 18.24 19.01 16.51 6905 5350201 21214653 16239376 21214649 5371033 (11.24) 27.43 24.95 6996 19365699 1959088'3 19590888 19590889 (17.30) 25.21 22.88 19.51 20.38 20.25 7052 20712468 19590884 ( ) 19.65 20.42 7082 19871950 19871951 19871952 4662673 9327369 37.10 33.73 26.69 34.33 29.94 7083 19590885 (4.33) 7.03 8.81 7.65 8.85 8.61 7148 15326674 20132372 20132374 20132375 MT MT 13.89 16.52 14.55 7166 20306223 20401001 26.95 23.34 27.69 25.70 7167 21214440 5350202 18.73 17.24 School 4969921 (9.89) 26.59 19.89 20.39 18.74 16.39 Park 4407993 23384413 46.70 58.88 60.52 62.19 38.62 22.27 Notes ( ) = Not a full.year MT = Meter troubles 0 12 In Table 2 are shown the depths of water applied to the grass areas of North Bluff. The acreage of grass on each tract was obtained from letters submitted by Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates with the corresponding Tentative Tract Maps. The acreage information for Tracts 6885 and 6996 was combined in a single letter. Grass acreages for the school and the park were supplied by the City's Department of Public Works. The convenience of the acre-foot unit of volume can thud be seen. The acre-foot volumes of Table 1 can be divided by the acreages to arrive at the depth in feet of water applied to the grass areas. Table 2 also shows the average depth of applied water in inches per year. Evidence for Over -watering The evidence from the South Coast Field Station indi- cates that.applications of more than 0 inches per year on cool season grasses (such as bluegrass) must be considered excessive. Actually, the depth of application should be reduced below 48 inches to account for the amount of annual rain which can be used consumptively by the grass. Runoff caused by heavy rains does not get into the soil and is therefore not available for consumptive use by the grass. Effective rainfall -- that part of the annual rain which the grass can use -- will depend upon the nature of the rainstorms during the year. Another evidence of over -watering is that one of the tracts applied an average of only 34.3 inches of water per year, whereas another used an average of 71 inches per year. If one were to assume that the grass could be kept acceptable in 13 Table 2. Depths of water applied to grass areas. Tract No. Acres of Grass 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Ave. Feet Ave. Inche 6885 5.39 3.38 3.53 3.06 3.32 39.8 6905 6.16 4.45 4.05 4.25 51.0 6996 7.56 3.33 3.03 2.58 2.70 2.68 2.86 34.3 7052 4.23 4.65 4.83 4.74 56.9 7082 6.89 5.38 4.90 3.87 4.98 4.35 4.70 56.4 7083 1.73 4.06 5.09 4.42 5.12 4.9.8 4.73 56.8 7148 3.78 3.67 4.37 3.85 3.96 47.5 7166 4.38 6.15 5.33 6.32 5.86 5.92 71.0 7167 3.16 5.93 5.46 '5.70 68.4 School 6.22 4.27 3.20 3.28 3.01 2.64 3.28 39.4 Park 13.0 3.59 4.53 4.66 4.78 2.97 1.71 3.38 40.6 Rainfall Irvine Coast Country Club 11.66 7.95 5.10 11.39 12.96 9.54 Note: Park watering started in 1965. Average is for the 10-year period 1966-75. Earlier years usage - in feet. 1966 - 3.78 1967 - 3.36 1968 - 2.58 1969 - 1.87 * 1975 Rainfall is for Corona del Mar Automatic 14 appearance at only 34.3 inches per year with careful management, then one could suggest that applications of more than 34.3 inches per year could be considered excessive. Field inspections by the writer revealed even more direct evidence of over -watering: (1) flooded meter boxes; (2)'very soggy soils; and (3) abundant snail growth. The Consequences of Over -watering In the very sandy soils of the Quaternary terrace deposits which cover the entire North Bluff area, efficient watering of lawn grass is more difficult than in heavier soils. The water -holding capabilities of these sandy soils at field capacity are very low -- perhaps no more than an inch of water per foot of soil. In hot weather particularly, the grass must be watered more frequently than similar,grass on a loamy,or clayey soil. If the water application is greater than the soil's ability to hold water, the excess water moves vertically downward beyond the soil zone until it reaches the zone of saturation (water table). In a few areas there are probably temporary (or perched) water tables. In time, the downward percolating irrigation water reaches the base of the terrace sands and tends to mound up on the rock surface at the top of the sandstone. Furthermore, maintaining a moist soil condition in the lawn areas tends to cause more rainfall to move through the soil zone than was true prior to the housing developments. The mounding of the ground water on top of the sandstone surface creates a water -table gradient toward a natural exit, which is the edge of the Bluff. Thus, the ground water becomes 15 seepage from the base of the terrace sands and runs into the bay. This mechanism is illustrated in Figure 2— Chemical Evidence of Seepage Source Suggestions have been made that the seepage below Tract 7166 is related to leakage from the City sewer which is located in a bench along the north sides of Tracts 7167, 7166,,and 7082. Water samples have,been taken, and analyzed for chemical constit- uents as a means of testing this suggestion. Water samples were taken during 1975 at the following points: 1. A flooded meter box near the intersection of Vista Ornado and Vista del Oro. 2. Domestic water in the Eastbluff area. 3.' Several samples of the water seeping below Tract 7166. 4. Sewage from the manhole directly above the seepage area. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 3. The cations -- calcium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium are subject to base exchange processes and are very difficult to use in tracing water sources. Chloride is difficult to use in differentiating domestic and irrigation return water. There is a normal increase in chloride between delivered water and domestic sewage. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, attempts to hold the chloride increment in domestic sewage to 40 parts per million. When water is applied to lawns for irrigation_, there is a concentration of chloride (and other ions) due to evapotranspiration. Grass uses the water molecules for transpiration, but all of the dissolved salts in the irrigation water remain in the soil until leached downward below the soil -zone. The concentration and dilution mechanisms FIGURE Z - THE RELATIONSHIP OF OVER -IRRIGATION, RATER -TABLE MOUNDING AND SEEPAGE IN THE NORTH BLUFF AREA, OVER -IRRIGATION WATER TABLE SEEPAGE n LJ 0I 17 Table 3. Results of chemical analyses in parts per million. Chemical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Calcium 157 153 76 Sodium 145 104 100 Potassium 11 38 5 Magnesium 43 45 28 Bicarbonate 332 153 165 Sulfate 336 360 300 330 Chloride 207 215 95 192 95 135 160 Nitrate 28 141 2.5 30 trace 141 24 0 Phosphate 10 1 1 1 30 Hydrogen sulfide trace 0 0 0 0.9 Boron 0.23 0.44 0.31 Samples 1, 2, and 3 are from letter fror. G. A. Nicoll and Associates to The Irvine Company dated August 19, 1975. 1. At bottom of bluff in desilting basin. 2. On bluff face where water is coming out of bluff. 3. Domestic water from residential area west of bluff. Samples 4 and 5 are from memorandum from T. Phillips to Joe Devlin dated June 26, 1975. 4. Ground water from slope above Back Bay Road. 5. M. W. D. water Samples 6, 7, and 8 are from memorandum to Mr. Tom Phillips from J. A. McDonald dated September 21, 1975. 6. Surface runoff water from meter service vault at Vista Ornado and Vista del Oro. 7. Seepage water coming directly out of the hillside in the area of the slide above Back Bay Drive. 8. Sample of sewage from a manhole directly above the slide area. are so complex, that a rise in chloride is simply not diagnostic in a problem of this sort. Phosphates are found in many fertilizers; however, lawn fertilizers are normally of a high "ni'trogen-low phosphate type. Phosphates are also common in domestic sewage, as a result of the usage of synthetic cleaning and water -softening compounds. Although the phosphate analyses could not be considered conclusive by themselves, the high nitrate -to -phosphate ratio indicates the source of the seepage water as irrigation water rather than as sewage. Nitrate is a much more diagnostic substance. There are many nitrogen compounds in raw domestic sewage, but the nitrate form is negligible (Reference 10). On, the other hand, a high nitrate content is characteristic of lawn fertilizers. The chemical evidence shown on Table 3 demonstrates that the seepage water is derived from the over -irrigation of lawns. Sample 2, taken from the bluff face at the point where the water is coming out of the bluff has a high nitrate content (141 parts per million). The same high nitrate content (141 parts per million) is shown by Sample 6, taken from a flooded meter service vault, where the water is unquestionably of lawn irrigation origin. 19 REFERENCES 1. Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F. and Schoellhamer, J. E. - 1957 - Geologic Man of the San Joaquin Hills - San Juan Capistrano area, Orange County, California; Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM 193; United States Geological Survey. 2. Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates - June 25, 1969- Report of Soil Investigation for the planned North Bluff Residential Development. 3. Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates - March 23, 1971 - Erosion Failure Repair, Tract No. 7082, North Bluff Development. 4. California Department of Water Resources - 1975 - Vegetative Water Use in California 1974; Bulletin No. 113-3 5. Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources - 1943 - Report of Referee, City of Pasadena vs. City of Alhambra, et al., No. Pasadena C-1323, Superior Court, Los Angeles County. 6. California Department of Water Resources - 1965 - Unit Water Use 'Study at Pershing Square, Los Angeles County, California, for the period November. 15, 1960 - November 12, 1962. 7. Goleta County Water District - February 19,74 Estimated Consumptive Use and Irrigation Requirements for Golf Courses in the Goleta County Water District, Santa Barbara County. 8. Marsh, Albert W. - January 1970 - Turfgrass irrigation research at the University of California; California Turfgrass Culture, volume 20, no. 1. 9. Gibeault, Victor A.'- 1972 - Guides for Developing an Irrigation Program; Calculating Irrigation Needs: Tenth Annual Turfgrass Sprinkler Irrigation Conference Proceedings, pp. 35-41. 10. Environmental Protection Agency - 1973 - Nitrogenous Compounds in the Environment. SEEPAGE A EROSION A A- s \ c..Hry/EG PL. . OAR C915 r CirR S p�. N Io ' h t�\J� 0 \ \1 TRACT BOUNDARIES, FOR NORTH BLUFF AREA DRAWN:G:LW. DATE:6-3-76