HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCDP88-11P_FOR EIR 485111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
*NEW FILE*
MCDP88-11P
1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT > R E. CI^ E l
D 1988 �- r t
DATE: May 4, 1988 L WIAY 2
CIiY • �
TO: Orange County Planning Commission NEWPOF"fyEACH,
O� CALIF.
FROM: EMA/Planning (Coastal & Community Planning) 'Co tq
Q
i SUBJECT: Master Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 88-11P for the Irvine Coast
I Planned Community
SYNOPSIS: A master coastal development permit is proposed by The Irvine Company
to allow the construction of infrastructure improvements and
subdivision of a major portion of the Irvine Coast Planned Community
(PC) for financing and conveyance purposes. Draft Environmental
t Impact Report (DEIR) 485 has been prepared for the project.
Contact Person: Patricia Shoemaker - 834-6959
)
BACKGROUND
i
+ Master Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 88-11P is the second of a series of
discretionary actions proposed by The Irvine Company to implement the certified
Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program (ICLCP). The first project, a development
agreement, was approved by your Commission on March 29, 1988, and adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on April 20, 1988. The Master CDP is proposed to satisfy
• the discretionary permit requirements of the ICLCP for certain infrastructure
S improvements and the subdivision of land for financing and conveyance purposes.
The Master CDP addresses the portion of the Irvine Coast PC located between the
P City of Newport Beach (Corona del Mar community) and Crystal Cove State Park,
excluding the Wishbone Hill and Muddy Canyon areas (Attachment A).
f PROJECT DESCRIPTION
}}g The Master CDP (Attachment B) is a large-scale plan comprising the following
:{ improvements and required plans/studies:
1. The Roadway Improvement Plan proposes the conceptual alignments of: 1) six -
lane Pelican Hill Road which was approved by the Coastal Commission under
separate permit, 2) two-lane Sand Canyon Avenue through Planning Areas (PA)
r 3A and 3B, 3) the off -site extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to its
k intersection at Pelican Hill Road, 4) loop roads which provide access to
development areas, and 5) Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) widening along the
project frontage.
a
s
2. The Infrastructure Improvements Plan provides sufficient details to permit
the construction of backbone drainage facilities, domestic water storage and
p distribution system, sanitary sewer collection system, and master utilities.
Ga
3. The Master Drainage Improvement and Urban Runoff Management Plan provides an
assessment of the development impacts on Buck Gully and Los Trancos Canyon
subwatersheds, and identifies physical improvements and control measures for
implementation coincidental with development.
Orange County Planning Commission
• Page 2
4. The Grading Plan conceptually defines grading requirements for arterial
roadways, loop roads, and other public works and infrastructure
improvements, and identifies proposed borrow and interim storage sites. In
addition, the plan provides sufficient details to allow, as described in the
ICLCP, disruption to USGS "Blue -Line" Drainage Courses within development
areas.
5. The subdivision map for the Master CDP comprises 61 numbered lots and six
lettered lots for financing and/or the sale or lease to builders/developers,
or dedication to the County. Minor adjustments to PC Development Map and
Statistical Table are proposed to reflect the subdivision map configuration.
6. The Development/Open Space Boundary Plan provides treatment for the
interface edge between development and open space (i.e., fuel modification,
biological resource protection, landscaping, etc.). The Environmental
Management Program sets forth provisions for cultural, biological and visual
resources protection within the overall development plan.
The initial Master CDP application has been revised in response to public
comments on the project and DEIR 485. The changes are presented in annotated,
colored, insert pages.
LCP CONSISTENCY
. The ICLCP allows the processing of a master coastal development permit for the
purpose of obtaining County approval of conceptual plans and accompanying
environmental documents for large-scale projects. This Master CDP proposes
development of community -wide and County regional public facilities together
with subdivision of the project area. Staff evaluation of this Master CDP
focuses on project consistency with relevant ICLCP policies and regulations.
The analysis, summarized in tabular form (Attachment C), indicates which ICLCP
provisions: 1) have been incorporated into the conceptual design of roadways,
infrastructure improvements and grading plans ("MCDP Feature"); 2) will be
addressed at subsequent planning and design stages ("Subsequent Project
Mitigation"); and/or 3) will require a condition of project approval in order to
achieve consistency with the ICLCP ("Findings and Conditions of Approval").
Brief comments on key project components follow.
Roadway Improvement Plan
The conceptual design and alignment of each proposed roadway is consistent with
the intent of the ICLCP. Final design and approval for Pelican Hill Road, San
Joaquin Hills Road, Sand Canyon Avenue and PCH widening will require continued
coordination with CalTrans, State Parks and Recreation, Orange County Transit
District and public utilities and service providers. Condition No. 6 is
proposed to ensure that precise design of these facilities responds to County
and other responsible agencies standards and specifications.
Infrastructure Improvements Plan
• The proposed infrastructure improvements are consistent with ICLCP provisions
and reflect coordination with the servicing agencies. Condition No. 12 is
Orange County Planning Commission
Page 3
recommended to ensure that any necessary refinements to the water/wastewater
distribution and collection system are incorporated into a final plan of works
prior to the recordation of the first development tract map.
Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan
The Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MD/RMP), incorporating technical
hydrologic and environmental studies, has been prepared consistent with General
Provision No. 11 of the ICLCP. Policy I.3.K.1 of the ICLCP allows an increase
in peak flood discharge of up to ten percent above the natural rate, provided
that the natural erosion and beach sand replenishment process is not
significantly affected. The MD/RMP concept involves a system of detention
basins, storm drains and energy dissipators to control storm flows and sediment
transport. Staff supports the MD/RMP in concept and recommends
Condition Nos. 22 and 23 requiring a refined plan.
Grading Plan
Grading for construction of Pelican Hill Road and adjacent drainage facilities,
and future development of PAs 8 and 2B involve 1.6 million cubic yards of
balanced cut and fill grading. Grading proposed outside the PC boundary will
require a site development permit or subdivision map as recommended in
Condition Nos. 15 and 16. Additional conditions are proposed to ensure that
appropriate geologic studies, erosion control measures,, cultural resource
• protection measures, noise attenuation and landscaping are implemented prior to
and/or concurrent with grading operations.
Subdivision Map
Subdivision of land is a project under Coastal Act Section 30106. This Master
CDP satisfies the requirements of the ICLCP for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 13337 subject to certain conditions of approval, including dedication of
Special Use Open Space. Policy No. I.3.A.2 requires dedication of Buck Gully
and Los Trancos prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the first final
development map, other than a large -lot subdivision, in planning areas adjoining
these major open space areas. Condition Nos. 24 and 25 are recommended for that
purpose.
The subdivision map resulted in minor adjustments to the PC Development Map and
Statistical Table. Since the acreage change is less than ten percent for each
affected Planning Area, the modifications are consistent with ICLCP General
Provision No. 3 and Chapter 11 of the PC District Regulations.
DEIR 485/CEQA COMPLIANCE
DEIR 485 (Attachment D) has been prepared for Master CDP 88-11P and distributed
for review and comment to responsible agencies and interest groups on the
County's Referral List. Written comments were received from the City of Irvine,
Friends of the Irvine Coast, the Irvine Ranch Water District and several state
agencies, and have been addressed in a Response to Comments document
(Attachment E).
•
0
Orange County Planning Commission
Page 4
NOTIFICATION/REFERRALS
Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the project area and interested parties on April 21, 1988. Also,
copies of the initial Master CDP were mailed to the Friends of the Irvine Coast;
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.; cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and Laguna Beach;
CalTrans; California Coastal Commission; and State Department of Parks and
Recreation with a request for comments. Comments received are included in
Attachment E.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission resolutions certifying proposed Final EIR 485
(Attachment F) and approving, with conditions, Master CDP 88-IIP (Attachment G).
Respect lly submitted,
Kenneth C. r
lagerCoastal & Colanning
PS:mhPCC11-2
8120
Attachment A) Vicinity Map
B) Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
C) Table 1, Summary Consistency Table
D) Draft EIR 485 and Appendices
E) Response to Comments and Draft EIR 485 Errata
F) Planning Commission EIR Resolution No. 88-45
G) Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-46 for Master CDP 88-11P
0
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AGENCY REPORT
Master Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 88-11 P
Environmental Impact Report No. 485
for The Irvine Coast
Attachments:
A) Vicinity Map
B) Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11 P
C) Table 1, Summary Consistency Table
D) Draft EIR 485 and Appendices
E) Response to Comments and Draft EIR 485 Errata
F) Planning Commission EIR Resolution No. 88-45
G) Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-46 for Master
11
C�
•
ATTACHMENT= A
Vicintiy Map
E
10
MASTER COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
BOUNDARY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY LOCATION MA
!-'* zF1
17
MON - �- 0 =
�d c • we
�LG� • r• r r
«-
=AT[ PNK
C
21C
C
210
21A
CnY OF
LAMA !EACH
TC LAND USE DESIGNATION
130 PLANNING AREA NUMBER
PLANNING AREAS ADDRESSED IN EIR 486
Source: Irvine Coast Local Program
(First Amended.1987) - Land Use Plan
Attachment 1
5�
•
C
•
Attachment B
Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11 P
(bound under separate cover)
0
0
C�
CJ
•
•
1]
TABLE 1
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine"Caast LCP
Applicable
Policy/
Regulation
sui�ary of
paticypegutatim
MCDP
Feature
Subsequent
Project
Hiticiatim
Findings and
Conditions of
MCDP oval
1-2-e-4
Coastal Act consistency through
implementation of the Master
Circulation Plan.
X
1-3-C-2b7
Landform alterations for the purpose of
construction of local collector roads
and/or SJHTC are permitted in PA 128,
PA 12C, and PA 12D.
X
x
1.3-0-ta
where Landform alterations are required
for road construction in Category A and B
ESHA's, such modification shall be
the least physical alteration feasible.
X
x
1-3-D-te
Modification of drainage courses for
construction of PHR and SCA shall
substantially conform to LCP Exhibits
L and N.
X
X
1-3-D-ld
Landform alterations in PA 6, PA 12C
and/or PA 12A for the purpose of
construction of local collector roads,
SCA, and/or SJHR shall be the least
environmentally damaging feasible
alternative.
X
x
1.3-F-3
In Category D ESHA's, modification of
revegetation and drainage courses shall
occur due to the construction of PHR,
SCA, local collectors, and SJHTC.
X
1-4-E
Purpose and general policy statements.
x
1-4-E-1
Description and conceptual alignments for
roadway improvements (LCP Exhibits L, M,
N, 0, P, R).
1-4-E-2
Irvine Coast Arterial Roadway Phasing
Suamary (LCP Exhibit 0) description.
X
1-4-E-3
Typical sections for collector (Upper
and Lower Loop) Roads (LCP Exhibit R).
X
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
•
•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Subsequent
Findings and
Policy/
Summary of
MCDP
Project
Conditions of
Regulatim
Policy/Regulation
Feature
Mitioation
MOP Approval
1-4-E-4
Arterial highway access.
X
1-4-E-5
Design criteria for Pacific Coast
X
X
Highway access points (LCP Exhibit Y).
1-4-E-9
Regional Class 11 (on -road) bike trail on
X
X
Pacific Coast Highway and Pelicans Hill
Road.
1.4-E-10
Sensitive roadway alignment/design.
X
1.4-E-12
Ho sidewalks in Low and Medium -Low
X
Density residential area abutting open
space.
1-4-E-13
Public vistas provided as part of Pelican
X
X
Hill Road Design.
1-4-E-14
Use of contour grading in roadway
X
construction.
1-4-E-15
Terrace drains to be concealed by
X
X
Landscaping.
1.4-E-16
Gradual transition of landscaping to
X
native vegetation.
1-4-E-17
widening of Pacific Coast Highway as a
X
principal permitted use in PA 3A, PA 3B,
PA 9, PA 10A, PA 108, PA 14, and PA 17.
1-4-E-18
Provision for grading and construction of
X
the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor (Route 73) in PA 2C and PA 6.
1.4-E-20
Modification of typical Sand Canyon Avenue
X
Road section to include 13-foot wide lanes
1-4-E-21
Traffic management program measures.
X
1.4-E-22
Criteria for compliance with the County
X
of orange Growth Mane orient Program.
1-4-E-23
Heavy construction traffic access.
X
X
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
-2-
•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Policy/
Summary of
"MP
subsequent
Project
Findings mid
Conditions of
Regulation
Policy/Regulation
Feature
Miti Lion
MCDP Approval
11.3-A
General development provisions and
X
regulations.
11.3-8-3
Special development review provisions
X
x
for Planning Area boundaries.
11.3-B-22
implementation of Scenic Highway District
X
Regulations in accordance with Section
7.9-119 of the County Zoning Code.
11-3.0-23
Alignments of Pelican Hill Road and Sand
X
Canyon Avenue in substantial conformance
with the LCP Exhibits L and H.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAR
1-3-C-2al infrastructure as a principal permitted
X
use in PA 11A and PA 11B.
1.3-C-2bl
infrastructure as a principal permitted
X
use in PA 12A, PA 128, PA 12C, PA 12D,
PA 12E
1-3-C-2b5
Preservation of archaeological/
X
paleontological site except where
necessary to provide utility facilities.
1-3-C-2b6
Local roads associated with infrastructure
X
connection PA 3A, PA 3B, PA 4A and PA 48
are permitted through PA 128 and PA 12C.
1-4-F-1
Public works/infrastructure collection,
X
distribution and drainage facilities as
principal permitted uses.
1-4-F-2
Concept plans for backbone water,
X
x
sewer and drainage service facilities are
subject to refinement based on more
detailed information.
1-4-F-3
Design of water service improvements in
X
X
conjunction with final tract maps.
•
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
D4/29/88
(147/75.015)
-3-
• TABLE i (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable Subsequent Findings and
Policy/ I Sun ary of I "COP
I Project Conditions of
s...d .«:... Policv/Reaulatien Feature Mitigation MCDP Approval
•
•
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (continued)
I-4-F-4
Water system designed to provide adequate
X
fire flows.
I-4-F-6
Design of sewer system improvements in
X
X
conjunction with final tract maps.
1-4-F-7
Design of drainage improvements in
X
X
conjunction with final tract maps.
II-3-B-13
Water and sewer facilities shall be
X
X
instHlled in accordance with an approved
Plan of Public works.
II-3-B-25
Construction of utility facilities shall
X
conform with LCP Chapters 3 and 4.
MASTER DRAINAGE 1WROVEMENTS AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-2-A.2
Coastal Act Consistency through the
X
protection of Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas.
I-2-A-3
Coastal Act Consistency through
X
implementation of the Riparian Habitat
Creation Program and the Open Space
Dedication Programs.
I-2-A-4
Coastal Act Consistency through
X
implementation of the Erosion and Urban
Runoff Management Policies.
I-3-C-2al
Drainage control facilities constitute a
X
principle permitted use in PA 11A and
PA 11B.
I-3-C-2bl
Drainage control facilities constitute a
X
principle permitted use in PA 12A, PA 12B,
PA 12C, PA 12D, and PA 12E.
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
-4-
•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY
TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Policy/
Regulation
Sumemary of
Poli latim
MCDP
Feature
subsequent
Project
miti Lion
Findings and
Conditions of
MCDP Approval
1-3-D-1
Criteria for natural drainage courses in
X
X
Category A and 8 ESHA's.
1-3-E
Criteria for water quality protection in
X
Category C ESHA's.
1.3-F
Criteria for natural drainage courses in
X
x
Category D ESHA's.
Post -development erosion rates to
X
1-3-1-1
x
approximate natural or existing rates.
Re -vegetation of areas of disturbed soil.
X
1-3-I-2
X
Installation of erosion control devices.
X
1-3-1-3
X
Implementation of erosion control measures
X
• 1-3-1-4
X
for grading and construction.
1-3-J-1
Installation of sediment basins.
x
X
Maintenance of on -site vegetation to
X
I-3-J-2
X
reduce storm runoff.
Use of temporary mechanical control
X
1-3-J-3
X
measures.
1-3-J-4
Sediment movement in natural channels.
X
X
Consistency with County of Orange Grading
X
I-3-J-5
X
Code in erosion control device design.
1.3-K-1
Standard for peak flood discharge rates.
X
x
Conformance with County of Orange Flood
X
1-3-K-2
X
Control District Design Manual.
I-3-K-3
Protection of cut and fill slopes.
X
X
I-3-K-4
Retention basin maintenance.
X
x
I-3-K-5
Stabilization of drainage discharge
X
X
X
points.
•
Consistency
MCDP a8-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
-5-
•
a
is
I•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Policy/
Sunnary of
MCDP
Subsequent
Project
Findings and
Conditions of
Regulation
Poli lation
Feature
Nitictation
MCDP Approval
I-3-K-6
Drainage structure design.
x
x
x
1.4-8-2
Drainage facilities constitute a
X
principle permitted use in PA IDA and
PA 10.
1.4-8-5
Criteria for drainage courses,
x
x
consistency with the Riparian Habitat
Creation Program.
I.4-F-7
All drainage improvements will be
x
x
x
designed in conjunction with final
tract maps.
II-3-8-11
Consistency with the policies and
x
x
X
findings of the approved Master Drainage
and Runoff Management Plan.
ti-3-8-12
Provision for temporary erosion control
x
x
x
in a manner consistent with LCP policies
Section I-3-1 and I-3-K. '
11-3-B-21
Compliance with Floodplain District
x
x
Regulations in accordance with Sections
7-9-48 and 9-9-113 of the County Zoning
Code.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
I-3-G-1 (Archeo) Prior to CDP approval,
I-3-H-1 (Paleo> requires archaeological, paleontological
records search and field survey.
I-3-G-2 (Archeo)
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
Mitigation measures nay be required based
on County -approved report recommendations.
Prior to grading permits, archeological
subsurface testing and surface collection
must be performed.
Final mitigations shall be implemented
based on this information and Canty
determination.
.6-
x
x
x
x
x
x
•
•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-IIP/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Subsequent
Findings and
Policy/
sunwary of
11CDP
Project
Condition of
Regulation
Poti tatiun
Feature
Nitination
MmP Approval
1-3-G-3 (Archeo)
ArchaeoLogicat/paleontological salvage
X
X
X
1-3-11-2 (PaLeo)
or partial salvage required prior to
issuance of a grading permit in resource
site area.
I-3-G-4 (Archeo)
Evidence of archaeological/
X
X
X
I-3-H-3 (Pateo)
paleontological resource surveillance
may be required by County prior to
issuance of a grading permit in resource
site area.
A County -certified specialist must be
retained to establish procedures for the
above -referenced resource surveillance,
temporarily halting/redirecting work and
final mitigation/disposition of resources.
Except as may be limited by a future CDP,
arched/pateo surveillance shall be
provided for PA'S 3A, 38, IOA, 10B, 13A
through 13F, and 14.
II-3-B-6
Prior to Tentative Subdivision Map,
X
X
X
(Archeo/Pa Leo)
requires mitigation programs shall be
approved by County for archeo/paleo
resources per Board of Supervisors
Policies and LUP Policies Sections
1-3-G and 1-3-H.
1.3-A-2-a (Bio)
offer of Special Use Open Space
Dedication for PA 11A to be made with
recordation of Final Map for PA 1A,
18, or 2A (MCDP Subdivision Map).
X
X
1.3-A-2-b (Bio)
offer of Special Use Open Space
Dedication for PA 12A to be made with
recordation of Final Map for PA 1C, 28,
2C, or 3A.
X
X
1-3-C-2 (Bio)
Recreation/Open Space Management Policies
for Buck Gully, Los Trances and Pelican/
Wishbone Hill (excludes Muddy Canyon),
in particular, principal permitted use,
X
Car
MCC
04/
(14
•
C
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
&hsequent
Findings and
Policy/
Summary of
MCDP
Project
Conditions of
Regulation
Pali laticn
Feature
Mitication
MCDP Approval
I-3-D (Bic)
Category "A" and "B" ESHA Policies, in
X
X
particular drainage course modifications
required for drainage, erosion control,
roads, and related facilities;
consistency with LCP Exhibits L and N
for Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon
Avenue; drainage course modifications for
Upper Loop Road in PA 12A, removal of
vegetation as required for habitat
enhancement and/or fire control, or
drainage, erosion control, and related
facilities to implement Master Drainage
and Runoff Management Plan, vegetation
removal/alteration in PA 108 -- ell as
I-3-E (Bic)
implementing the least environmentally
damaging feasible alternative for Master
CDP grading and improvements.
Category "C" ESHA Policies, in particular
submittal of water quality monitoring
program to Regional Water Duality Control
Board prior to initial approval for PA 10A
and 10B, and in conjunction with CDP's and
related EIR's.
X
X
I-3-F (Bic)
Category "D" ESHA Policies, including Open
Space Dedication and Riparian Habitat
Creation Program as mitigation of drainage
course modification/elimination associated
with Master CDP grading/development, in
particular Pelican Hill Road, Sand Canyon
Avenue, Upper and Lower Loop Roads, and
SJHTC.
X
X
.K 13BT5)J,,-L
3
Erosion, Sediment, Runoff Grading Policies
in particular limited removal of natural
vegetation and planting of cut/fill slopes
with natives and appropriate non -natives
under direction of Licensed Landscape
Architect.
X
X
X
• Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
•
E
•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Subsequent
Findings and
Policy/
Amory of
MCDP
Project
Conditions of
Regulation
Poti lation
Feature
"itination
MCDP Approval
1.3-G-3 (Archeo)
Archaeological/paleontological salvage
X
X
X
I-3-H-2 (Paleo)
or partial salvage required prior to
issuance of a grading permit in resource
site area.
1.3-G-4 (Archeo)
Evidence of archaeological/
X
X
X
1-3-H-3 (Paleo)
paleontological resource surveillance
may be required by County prior to
issuance of a grading permit in resource
site area.
A County -certified specialist must be
retained to establish procedures for the
above -referenced resource surveillance,
temporarily'hatting/redirecting work and
final mitigation/disposition of resources.
Except as may be limited by a future CDP,
arched/paleo surveillance shall be
provided for PA's 3A, 3B, 10A, 108, 13A
through 13F, and 14.
II-3-8-6
Prior to Tentative Subdivision Map,
X
X
X
(Archeo/Paleo)
requires mitigation programs shall be
approved by County for archeo/paleo
resources per Board of Supervisors
Policies and LUP Policies Sections
I-3-G and 1-3-H.
1-3-A-2-a (Rio)
Offer of Special Use Open Space
X
X
Dedication for PA 11A to be made with
recordation of Final Map for PA 1A,
18, or 2A (MCDP Subdivision Map).
I-3-A-2-b (Bio)
offer of Special Use open Space
X
X
Dedication for PA 12A to be made with
recordation of Final Map for PA IC, 28,
2C, or 3A.
1.3-C-2 (Bio)
Recreation/Open Space Management Policies
for Buck Gully, Los Trances and Pelican/
Wishbone Hill (excludes Muddy Canyon),
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
-7-
• TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine Coast LCP
Applicable
Subsequent
Findings and
Policy/
Summery of
MCDP
Project
Conditions of
Regulation
Policy/Regulation
Feature
Miti tion
MCDP Approval
I-3-G-3 (Archeo)
Archaeological/paleontological salvage
X
X
X
I-3-H-2 (Pat eo)
or partial salvage required prior to
issuance of a grading permit in resource
site area.
1-3-G-4 (Archeo)
Evidence of archaeological/
X
X
X
1-3-H-3 (Paleo)
paleontological resource surveillance
may be required by County prior to
issuance of a grading permit in resource
site area.
A County -certified specialist must be
retained,to establish procedures for the
above -referenced resource surveillance,
temporarily halting/redirecting work and
final mitigation/disposition of resources.
Except as m6y be Limited by a future CDP,
archeo/paleo surveillance shall be
provided for PA's 3A, 38, 10A, 108, 13A
through 13F, and 14.
1I-3-8-6
Prior to Tentative Subdivision Map,
X
X
X
(Archeo/Paleo)
requires mitigation programs shall be
approved by County for archeo/paleo
resources per Board of Supervisors
Policies and LUP Policies Sections
I-3-G and I-3-H.
I-3-A-2-a (Bio)
Offer of Special Use Open Space
X
X
Dedication for PA 11A to be made with
recordation of Final Map for PA 1A,
1B, or 2A (MCDP Subdivision Map).
I-3-A-2-b (Bio)
Offer of Special Use Open Space
X
X
Dedication for PA 12A to be made with
,
recordation of Final Map for PA 1C, 28,
2C, or 3A.
I-3-C-2 (Bio)
Recreation/Open Space Management Policies
for Buck Gully, Los Trances and Pelican/
Wishbone Hill (excludes Muddy Canyon),
X
in particular, principal permitted use,
Consistency
MCDP 88.11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
-7-
•
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY CONSISTENCY
TABLE
Master CDP 88-11P/Irvine
Coast LCP
Applicable
•MCDP
9Anequent
Findings and
Policy/
Summery of
Project
Conditions of
Regulation
Policy/Regulation
Feature
Nitination
MCDP Approval
I-3-D (Bio)
Category "A" and "B" ESHA Policies, in
X
X
particular drainage course modifications
required for drainage, erosion control,
roads, and related facilities;
consistency with LCP Exhibits L and N
for Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon
Avenue; drainage course modifications for
Upper Loop Road in PA 12A, removal of
vegetation as required for habitat
enhancement and/or fire control, or
drainage, erosion control, and related
facilities to implement Master Drainage
and Runoff Management Plan, vegetation
removal/alteration in PA 10B -- all as
implementing the Least environmentally
damaging feasible alternative for Master
CDP grading and improvements.
I-3-E (Bio)
Category "C" ESHA Policies, in particular
X
X
"
submittal of water quality monitoring
program to Regional Water Quality Control
.
Board prior to initial approval for PA 10A
and 108, and in conjunction with CDP's and
related EIR's.
I-3-F (Bio)
Category "D" ESHA Policies, including Open
X
X
Space Dedication and Riparian Habitat
Creation Program as mitigation of drainage
course modification/elimination associated
with Master CDP grading/development, in
particular Pelican Hill Road, Send Canyon
Avenue, Upper and Lower Loop Roads, and
SJHTC.
1-3816;1,-K,-L
(
Erosion, Sediment, Runoff Grading Policies
X
X
X
in particular Limited removal of natural
vegetation and planting of cut/fill slopes
with natives and appropriate non -natives
under direction of Licensed Landscape
Architect.
Consistency
MCDP 88-11P
04/29/88
(147/75.015)
-8-
.10
r1
LJ
ATTACHMENT- D
Draft EIR 485 and Appendices
0*
•
Attachment D
Draft EIR 485 and Appendices
(bound as separate documents)
•
•
ATTACHMENT- E
Response to Comments and
Draft EIR 485 Errata
•
•
ATTACHMENT- F
Planning Commission EIR
Resolution No. 88-45
RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
Environmental Impact Report 485 for Master Coastal
RE, �Development-Permit 88-11P Irvine Coast Planned Community
RES. NO. 88-45
DATE OF ADOPTION:
May 4, 19
on Motion of Commissioner , duly seconded and carried,
the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, in January, 1988, an application (File No. CD 88-11P) was
submitted by The Irvine Company requesting a Master Coastal Development
Permit (CDP) to allow infrastructure improvements and subdivision for
financing and conveyance purposes of a major portion of the Irvine Coast
Planned Community; and
WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 485 has been
prepared to address the effects, mitigation measures, and project
alternatives associated with the proposed Master CDP; and
WHEREAS, DEIR 485 was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and County
Environmental Analysis procedures; and,
WHEREAS, DEIR 485 has been circulated for review and comment to
various federal, state and local agencies, and other interest groups in
• accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, written responses to comments have been prepared and
incorporated into the proposed Final EIR (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, this Commission conducted public hearings to receive all
public testimony with respect to DEIR 485; and
WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered proposed
FEIR 485 in making its decision on the proposed Master Coastal
Development Permit 88-11P; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the Guidelines
require that the Planning Commission make one or more of the following
findings prior to approval of a project for which an EIR has been
completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project,
along with other statements of facts supporting each finding:
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR.
FINDING
responsibilit;
agency making
agency or can
• FINDING
infeasible thi
the EIR; and
2 - Such changes or alterations are within the
� and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
the finding. Such findings have been adopted by such other
and should be adopted by such other agency.
3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
F 0250-151
-1-
• WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the Planning
Commission to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires, where the decision of the
Planning Commission allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, that the County state in
writing the reasons in support of its action based on the EIR or other
information in the record; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
The Planning Commission does hereby certify FEIR 485 as complete
and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the
proposed Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA
Guidelines. Said FEIR 485 comprises:
1. DEIR 485.
is
2. Appendices to DEIR 485.
3. Comments received on DEIR 485 and written responses.
4. Environmental Management Agency Reports on the project.
•
5. All attachments, incorporations and references delineated in
a-d above.
All of the above information has been and will be on file with the
County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Environmental and
Special Projects Division, 12 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission makes the following
findings in certification of FEIR 485:
1. That FEIR 485 has identified all significant environmental
effects of the project and that there are no known potential
environmental impacts 'not addressed in the FEIR.
2. That all significant environmental effects identified in the
Final EIR for the project are set forth in Exhibit A ("Statement of
Facts"), attached hereto and incorporated herein, together with the
appropriate finding supported by substantial evidence in the record,
including the FEIR 485.
-2-
• 3. That although the FEIR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all
significant effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been
reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation measures
on the project.
4. That the rejection of certain project alternatives (including
the No Project Alternative) in favor of the proposed project is based
upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in
Exhibit B ("Statement of Overriding Considerations").
5. That the facts set forth in Exhibits A and B ("Statement of
Facts" and "Statement of Overriding Considerations," respectively),
attached hereto and incorporated herein, are true and are supported by
substantial evidence in the record, including FEIR 485.
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 88-45 was
adopted on May 4, 1988, by the Orange County Planning Commission.
• Robert G. Fisher, Director of Planning
Environmental Management Agency
•
-3-
PS:sgP0001-3(W+140)8120
UM1
EIR 485
EXHIBIT A - FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Guidelines) (Section 15091) provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR
has been completed which identified one or more significant environmental
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief ex-
planation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
• (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR.
The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substan-
tial evidence in the record."
The following findings are organized in terms of 1) potential signific-
ant environmental effect (captioned "Significant Effects); 2) Findings; and
3) Facts in Support of Findings. As a necessary preface to these findings,
the following subsections address the "Project Objectives" in,order to define
the titlements addressed by EIR 485 and the Scope of CEQA Review and Project
Description, to present the substantive framework for the EIR analysis.
E
u
u
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The PROJECT objectives are as follows:
Provide backbone infrastructure and grading as designated in this
EIR to implement the 1988 Irvine Coast LCP.
• Subdivide the PROJECT area into large parcels for financing and/or
the sale or lease to builders/developers, or dedication to the
County of Orange.
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EIR 485
An Initial Study of the .PROJECT was prepared, and a Notice of Prepara-
tion (NOP) distributed to the State Clearinghouse, Responsible Agencies, and
other interested parties. The objectives of the Initial Study and NOP were
to identify the full range of environmental impacts associated with the Ir-
vine Coast Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map and to determine the scope of this
EIR. the Initial Study, NOP, distribution list and comments are contained in
Appendix A of EIR 485.
Draft EIR 485 has been prepared in accordance with the California En-
vironmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources code,
Section 21000 et seq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Admin-
istrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.). This report also complies with the
rules, regulation, and procedures for implementation of the California En-
vironmental Quality Act adopted by the County of Orange.
PRIOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) REVIEWS
Section 15150. of the CEQA guidelines permits an EIR to incorporate by
reference all or part of other documents that provide relevant data. The
following EIRs or equivalent EIRs have provided CEQA impact analysis, mitiga-
tion assessment, alternatives review, Coastal Act Policy analysis and base-
line data for EIR 486 and these findings, and are incorporated by reference:
• Pelican Hill Road EIR 460, certified in November, 1987.
• Irvine Coast LCP, certified in January, 1988, CEQA equivalent docu-
ment.
Irvine Coast Development Agreement, Final EIR 486, Draft circulated
on February 17, 1988, including Findings and Response to Comments.
These documents are available for review at the County of Orange EMA
Costal and Community Planning, 10 Civic Center Plaza, room 238, Santa Ana, CA
92702-4048.
LCP:
The following documents were also incorporated by reference in the 1988
EIR 134, certified in August, 1976, analyzed a Land Use Plan (LUP)
with 12,000 residential units and local and commercial, tourist,
recreation, and open space uses.
• EIR 237, certified in December, 1980, addressed a General Plan
Amendment which significantly changed the LUP. The EIR analyzed a
• project with 2,006 dwelling units and 160 acres of tourist recrea-
tion/commercial, a significant reduction in project intensity
compared to that which was evaluated in EIR 134.
Irvine Coast LUP, certified in January, 1982, CEQA equivalent
document.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Environmental Impact Report 485 evaluates the environmental implications
of the following PROJECT entitlements:
• Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map No. 13337 providing for the sub-
division of the PROJECT into large parcels for financing and/or the
sale or lease to builders/developers, or dedication to the County
of Orange.
• Construction of Sand Canyon Avenue within Planning Areas 3A and 3B;
Partial widening of Pacific Coast Highway along the Irvine Company
property frontage;
• Future widening of Pacific Coast Highway along State park frontage;
• Construction of a tunnel under Pacific Coast Highway to connect the
Pelican Hill golf course with its seaward extension onto Planning
Area 9.
Bi
•
• Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Road to Peli-
can Hill Road.
• Construction of Upper and Lower Loop Roads (collectors);
• Construction of backbone drainage improvements recommended in the
Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (Master CDP Appendix)
and the Irvine Coast Hydrology Report (Master CDP Appendix);
• The construction of backbone domestic water storage and distribu-
tion system;
. Relocation of water transmission line in PCH;
Construction of backbone wastewater collection system;
• Construction of backbone utility systems.
• FINDINGS
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will ensure that
the proposed project will not result in •significant impact on earth
resources. The "Finding" regarding Landform/Topography is equally applicable
to Geology/ Soils.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
The following measures are included as part of the project to offset any
potential adverse impacts on geology/soils:
Mitigation Design Measures Incorporated by Project Design
2-1 Unsuitable materials such as colluvium, alluvium, topsoil, land-
slide debris and artificial fill will be excavated and removed or
recompacted prior to placement of structural fills. Specific
grading recommendations for removal depths will be determined as
part of future, more detailed geotechnical studies. Site prepara-
tion, excavation and earthwork completion operations will be pre-
formed under the observation and testing of a soils engineer.
2-2 Removal of collapsible/compressible material will be required in
all areas of structural fill to minimize settlement potential,
except along Pacific Coast Highway. The additional load of new
• 4
•
•
fill placed on the old fill embankment at PCH may induce settlement
along portions of the roadway. Additional subsurface investigation
will be conducted to determine the settlement potential.
2-3 Roadway improvements will be designed to resist expected levels of
groundshaking. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) outlines specific
design requirements for structures based on expected potential
ground acceleration, intended uses, and subsurface soil or bedrock
conditions at the site. Roadways will be designed in accordance
with seismic design provisions established by the California De-
partment of Transportation to promote safety in the event of an
earthquake.
2-4 Stabilization of cut slopes will be performed as necessary as
determined by the soils engineer and in order to comply with LCP
Policy I-3-K-3. It is anticipated that slopes 5a, 8b, 9 and 16 on
ULR, slopes 20a, 20b, 21, 22, 23, 29,1 32 and 33 on LLR, slope 41 on
PCH, and the cut slope for the System 2 Tank Site will require a
stabilization fill because of the potential for erosion and/or
local popouts along adverse geologic structures. Cut slopes 6 and
8a on ULR, and slopes 26a, 26b and 26c on LLR are anticipated to be
grossly unstable as designed and buttresses will be necessary for
stabilization. All other cut slopes are expected to be stable as
designed. Additional subsurface investigation will be conducted,
as necessary, during the final design phase of the project. All
cut slopes will be mapped by an engineering geologist during grad-
ing to verify the anticipated conditions.
2-5 The adverse impacts to the proposed roadways and developments due
to landslides will be mitigated during grading. Partial or total
removal of unsuitable landslide material will be required prior to
placement of the proposed fill for landslide A on SJHR, landslides
B, C, D and E on ULR, and landslides GG and FF on LLR. Large shear
keys will be necessary to provide stability for the LLR above
landslides F, H, I, M, N, P, U and T, although the landslides will
not necessarily be stabilized. Remedial grading operations for
these large shear keys will extend into the open space lots. Shear
keys will also be provided for landslides V and W on the LLR,
however these landslides will be stabilized since they occur above
the road grade. Additional subsurface investigation will be under-
taken for landslides H, I, T, U, V and W on the LLR during the
grading plan review stage.
•
2-6 There is a potential for slope instability of natural slopes where
adverse geologic conditions exist. Two areas with these conditions
have been identified at the site: 1) on the north side of the
northwest segment of LLR and 2) on the north side of Signal Peak on
the north side of ULR. Side hill shear keys will be implemented to
provide stability for the upslope development. Each hillside that
is left as natural, or is below daylight cuts or fills will be
evaluated during the grading plan review. Additional subsurface
investigation may be required in these areas.
2-7 Concentrated runoff will not be allowed to drain into unprotected
natural drainage courses, especially at the toe of landslides or
natural hillsides with adverse bedding conditions. Drainage im-
provements to mitigate erosion in the canyons have been provided in
the Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan, as discussed in
Section 4.3 of EIR 485. A geotechnical study to aid in the design
of the drainage structures is presently underway. The final design
• for these improvements will be reviewed by the geotechnical en-
gineer.
Runoff will be controlled to avoid saturation of slope materials.
Positive surface drainage will be provided to direct surface water
away from the tops of slopes and natural hillsides, and toward the
streets or other suitable drainage services. Terrace benches with
paved gunite ditches will be provided on the, graded cut and fill
slope faces in accordance with the County of Orange Building Codes.
2-8 All canyon bottoms, re-entrants, shear keys, buttresses and stabil-
ization fills will be provided with sub -drains after remedial
removals and prior to placement of fill, in accordance with the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in the Janu-
ary, 1988 report by Leighton and Associates, Inc.
2-9 The four abandoned oil wells will be reabandoned according to
current D.O.G. standards and requirements.
2-10 If it is determined that sandstones of the Bommer Member and dia-
base bedrock require drilling and blasting to maintain production
in earthwork grading, the oversize material generated will be
placed in deep fills, in accordance with the General Earthwork and
Grading Specifications included in the January, 1988, report by
Leighton and Associates, Inc. Alternative handling of oversize
material includes crushing or -disposal off -site.
0
2-11 Fill materials will be placed and compacted in accordance with the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications provided by Leighton
and Associates, Inc. (January, 1988). Prior to commencement of
grading operations, heavy vegetation concentrations of deleterious
materials will be cleared and disposed of off -site and -will comply
with LCP Policy I-3-L-7. Subsequent to removals, fill areas will
be scarified and moisture, conditioned prior to placing fill. In
general, all structural fills will be compacted to a minimum of 90%
relative compaction based on ASTM Test method D1557-78. Nonstruc-
tural fills (i.e., a golf course) will be compacted to a minimum of
85% relative compaction..
Expansive soil conditions exist within some of the. earth units at
the site. Selective grading procedures may be utilized to remove
the exposed expansive soils.
• County Required Mitigation Measures
2-12 Prior to the Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map for site -specific
development, the project proponent will submit soils engineering
and geologic (if appropriate due to slope conditions) studies to
the Manager, Development Services for approval which will comply
with LCP Policy I-3-L-1. These reports will primarily involve
assessment of potential soil related constraints and hazards such
as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, or related secon-
dary seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the
Manager, Development Services. The report will include evaluation
of potentially expansive soil and recommended construction proce-
dures and/or design criteria to minimize their effect of these
soils on the proposed development. All reports will recommend
appropriate mitigation measures and be completed in the manner
specified in the Orange County Grading Manual and State Subdivision
Map Act and County Subdivision Ordinance.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
The Local Coastal Program (LCP) specifies certain policies for the
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) categories for any development
and encroachment into the drainage areas. These categories have been devel-
oped for the protection of riparian habitat, drainages, and other coastal
0
•
V
resources within the Coastal Zone. Portions of Buck Gully and Los Trancos
Canyon watercourses are classified as ESHA Category A in accordance with the
Irvine Coast LCP (see Figure 4.14). Category A is defined as those United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Drainage Courses and associated riparian oak
woodland vegetation which are the most significant habitat areas in the
Irvine Coast and subject to the most protection.
Portions of Los Trancos and Buck Gully are classified as categories B
and D ESHA. The LCP defines Category B drainages as having "relatively less
habitat value, located in Residential Recreation, Public Recreation and
Conservation Land Use Categories." Category D,ESHA is given to USGS drainage
courses having the lowest habitat value and located in residential, commer-
cial and public recreation land use areas,." These drainages contain water
only when it rains and have little or no riparian vegetation.
Condition Of Drainage Areas
The majority of water courses within the study area are stable (based on
site visits conducted by Rivertech Inc.). The major drainage courses are
characterized by incised channels having steep bottom and side slopes and
significant vegetative cover. However, surface and gully erosion is evident
downstream of the existing Newport Beach development in the Buck Gully water-
shed. In the lower reaches of Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill watersheds, a
substantial sediment supply is available, as evidenced by the presence of
sandbars and islands having fine bed sediment size.
Based on a Rivertech field reconnaissance survey, a number of sites with
surface slides along the major canyons of Los Trancos and Buck Gully were
identified. (Refer to Geotechnical Review of Vesting "A" Tentative Tract
13337, by Leighton and Associates, Volume 1, January 29, 1988, in Appendix
F). The number and sizes of these slides are substantial. The active slide
areas serve as one of the sources of sediment supply to the downstream
reaches along Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully.
Significant quantities of gravel and cobbles were observed along the bed
of some reaches in Buck Gully. At these reaches, channel degradation has
ceased due to the natural armoring process. Channel beds having such charac-
teristics indicate a reduced quantity of sediment.
Inspection of specific reaches of Los Trancos Canyon also exhibited
significant quantities of coarse material. Should there be a reduction in
sediment yield at upstream reaches of Los Trancos Canyon, this course mater-
ial will protect and slow streambed degradation.
U3
Storm Runoff
The Keith Companies prepared the Hydrology Plan for the proposed Irvine
Coast development project (Appendix I). This plan is required as part of the
Master Tract Map process, and has been prepared with environmental conditions
taken into consideration, as stipulated by the Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Land Use Plan, and by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency
(EMA). The Plan has also been prepared to conform with OCEMA Flood Control
District standards (1986) and Caltrans design standards for the existing cul-
verts under Pacific Coast Highway.
Using the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency's Hydrology
Manual prepared in October, 1986, The Keith Companies calculated peak dis-
charges at key locations for pre -developed and post -developed conditions.
Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the resulting peak discharges for the two condi-
tions. These discharges do not include routing analysis through the poten-
tial detention basins. Accordingly, at some locations the post -development
discharges would exceed the pre -development values by more than ten percent
if no provisions were made for detention facilities. During the development
of the project, detention basins will be designed so that the increase in
post -development peak discharges in the major canyons of Los Trancos and Buck
Gully do not exceed the ten percent limit required by the EMA. In the drain-
age courses of the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill, deten-
tion basins will be sized so that the post -development peak discharges will
be less than the pre -development peak discharges.
All runoff from the developed areas will be captured in the streets and
collector roads, placed in underground pipes, and discharged into existing
canyons through energy dissipators. Energy dissipators (impact type) will be
provided at outlets of storm drains with high flow velocities. They dissi-
pate the flow energy before discharging it to the natural stream. Details,
configurations and potential locations of these energy dissipators are shown
in the MDRMP. Detention basins are proposed in addition to those in'the LCP
Backbone Drainage Concept. These facilities are intended to reduce the peak
discharge imbalance with the reduced sediment yield from development areas.
This will further mitigate potential channel degradation.
Urban Runoff
Urban runoff from tl
surfaces and chemicals
concern in runoff water
Planned Community are:
0
ie developed areas will car
used in the urban areas.
and sediment from a site
1) nitrogen and phosphate
y pollutants from manmade
The main pollutants of
such as the Irvine Coast
compounds from lawn and
•
plant bed fertilizers; 2) pesticides, herbicides and fungicides used in
insect and plant control; 3) zinc, and to a lesser extent copper, lead, cad-
mium and other trace metals from street surfaces and from a variety of pro-
ducts used in the home and in commercial establishments; and 4) detergents.
The MDRMP states that "These pollutants will have little or negligible
impact on terrestrial habitats, and can only impact marine habitats when
introduced in a highly concentrated form." Because the total development
represents a limited portion of the project site and will include only resid-
ential and commercial land uses, urban runoff is not anticipated to have a
measurable impact on the marine habitats off the Irvine Coast.
The primary ways a low to medium density residential, tourist -commercial
and recreational development such as the Irvine Coast Planned Community might
affect the adjacent marine environment are through the flow of excessive
amounts of freshwater, sediments, chemicals and other materials associated
with runoff from the site during and following periods of rainfall. Impor-
• tant factors to recognize when analyzing potential effects of runoff mater-
ials on the Irvine Coast are the presence of strong action by wave surge,
breaking waves, rip current cells, tidal movements, and both longshore and
offshore current flow. Together, these processes quite rapidly mix, dilute
and transport the fine sediment, chemicals and other materials pertinent to
the watershed of the proposed Irvine Coast Planned Community.
There are numerous major natural watercourses carrying runoff water to
the ocean at widely spaced intervals along the Irvine Coast shoreline. As a
result, this series of watercourses will disperse the runoff and associated
pollutants along the entire shoreline in a natural way, rather than from one
or two point sources. These important characteristics, particularly in
considering runoff from the Pelican Hill area, assure that there will be
effective, rapid dispersal and mixing of the runoff water when it reaches the
ocean. These combined processes of dispersal, mixing, dilution and the
limiting of the residence time of pollutant chemicals in a given area will
reduce to an insignificant level their effects on the marine environment.
One area that may require careful monitoring, however, is the golf
course on the Pelican Hill frontal slopes. Introduction of fertilizers,
herbicides, and pesticides into this watershed could allow these substances
to make their way to the marine habitats. Since the golf course is just
inland of Pacific Coast Highway and- near coastal waters, there is a higher
risk of adversely impacting the marine habitats. Although there is no known
evidence of marine habitats being affected by golf course operations, the
0 10
•
potential impacts that may exist as a result of chemical application and
watering should be addressed.
SEDIMENT YIELD
To achieve a balance between discharge and bed sediment load, Rivertech
has recommended a number of flow -by detention basins in the downstream
reaches from Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill. These detention basins will be
designed to enhance stability of the downstream reaches. Two types of deten-
tion basins are planned for the project site. Their configuration and poten-
tial locations are shown in the Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan
(MDRMP) prepared by Rivertech. Both types are special flow -by detention
basins planned to retard' water discharge but allow the majority of bed sedi-
ment load to pass through.
FINDINGS
• The incorporation of mitigation measures described here and in the
Master Drainage and runoff Management Plan will mitigate any potential ad-
verse hydrologic impacts to a level of non -significance.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are included as part of the project to
offset potential adverse impacts. The measures are categorized into existing
LCP policies and measures proposed by the project proponent.
Mitigation Measures Incorporated By Project Design
Storm Runoff And Sedimentation
3-1 Erosion and sedimentation control devices will be installed during
construction to protect the channels and prevent excessive sediment,
loading in storm runoff, mitigate impacts to Areas of Special
Biological Significance.
3-2 Sandbags will be placed across streets where necessary, depending
upon size of catchment and sediment yield.
3-3 For each phase of the project development, sedimentation and ero-
sion control design plans consistent with LCP policies I-3-I'-1, I-
• 11
E
3-I-2, I-3-J-2, I-3-J-3, I-3-J-41 I-3-J-5, I-3-D-1C, and I-3-J-2
will be prepared. These plans will be submitted to the Manager,
Subdivision Division, prior to issuance of each project grading
permit. These plans, which must be consistent with the required
refined Runoff Management Plan, would cover the following:
• Drainage Protection and Control Measures
- Rate of runoff during and after the proposed development;
- Location of natural and manmade drainage ways;
- Drainage size above cut and fill slopes;
- Proposed methods to reduce erosion;
- Methods used to control runoff across cut and fill slopes
and graded areas during and after the proposed develop-
ment.
Sediment Trap Basins
• - Location and dimensions of the sediment trap basins which
would serve as detention basins after construction;
- Hydrologic analysis and estimates of sediment trap Para-
meters used in the design;
- The type and manner of slope stabilization.
• Fill Slopes
- Location, slope and height of fill area;
- Slope and condition of original ground;
- Number.and dimensions of benches and terraces;
- Sources of fill material and suitability to support
vegetation;
- Maximum fill thickness layers to be compacted, percent
compaction and methods of slope protection.
• Cut Slopes
- Location, slope and height of cut area;
- Number and width of drainage terraces;
- Ability of ground to support vegetation.
• Disposal of Spoil Material
Type of soil material;
- Disposal location;
• 12
E
- Stabilization of spoil and erosion control.
• Stockpile
- Source of material;
- Location, slope, height and duration of stockpile;
- Stabilization of stockpile.
3-4 Storm drains as illustrated in the MDRMP will be implemented to
convey runoff to well defined channels. The design of pipes and
supporting geotechnical information for proper release point design
will be addressed in the required refined Runoff Management Plan in
compliance with LCP Policy I-3-K-5, I-3-K-1, I-3-K-2, I-3-K-4, I73-
K-6, I-4-B-5, and I-4-F-7.
3-5 Energy dissipators and riprap lining (rock) will be constructed at
the outlet of storm drains to reduce the velocity of flow and
• prevent excessive downstream erosion.
3-6 Detention basins, as described in the MDRMP, or comparable facili-
ties will be implemented with development of residential, tourist -
commercial or golf course uses to reduce peak discharge in balance
with the reduction of sediment yield.
3-7 Sediment traps will be provided downstream of construction areas
and at the discharge points into natural drainage courses. This
may be accomplished through the conversion of detention basins or
comparable facilities.
Urban Runoff/Water Dualit
3-12 Consistent with LCP Policy I-3-E, a water quality monitoring pro-
gram will be implemented in the golf courses as provided for in the
MDRMP, and as summarized below pursuant to the Land Use Plan Cate-
gory "C" Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area'Policies. This
monitoring program will be implemented upon completion of golf
course construction.
- Prior to construction of the golf courses, storm water
runoff samples will be taken at the drainages passing
under Pacific Coast Highway to establish baseline, data
for comparison with samples taken after construction.
• 13
Specific mitigation measures relating to runoff and water quality
from the golf courses will be provided with the golf course Coastal
Development Permit.
3-13
Water quality sample data will be submitted to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County EMA.
3-14
All streets and parking lots will be vacuum swept on a regular
basis.
3-15
All general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, les-
sees, and property owners within the Irvine Coast Planned Community
will be notified that dumping of chemicals into the storm drain
system or the watershed is prohibited.
County Required
Mitigation Measures
The
Irvine Company will comply with and implement County EMA standard
• and special
Mitigation Measures for Master Plan level hydrologic require-
ments. The specific County measures would include:
3-16
Prior to the recordation of the first map (either for conveyance of
development) or prior to the issuance of any grading permit (which-
ever occurs first), the developer shall prepare a refined runoff
management plan, based on the Master Drainage and Runoff Management
Plan for Irvine Coast Planning Area, which includes details of the
locations and sizes of .retention basins, and other drainage devic-
es, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Flood Program
Division.
3-17 Prior to the recordation of the applicable final map (for con-
veyance or development) or prior to the issuance of a grading
permit (whichever occurs first) the developer shall design and
construct all necessary master infrastructure improvements iden-
tified in the refined Runoff Management Plan and provide necessary
dedications, all in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
Subdivision Division if work is accomplished with developer funds
or Manager, Design Division, if work is accomplished as a County
Assessment District.
3-18 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent
shall submit to the Manager, Subd.ivision Division, for review and
approval an erosion control program which indicates that proper
is 14
control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants will be
implemented as required in the Orange County Grading Code and
Grading Manual and LCP Policies I-3-L-2 and I-2-A-4.
3-19 Prior to the recordation of the final tract/parcel map, or prior to
the issuance of any grading permit, whichever comes first, and if
determined -necessary by the Manager, Subdivision Division, a letter
of consent, in a form suitable for recording, shall be obtained
from the downstream property owners permitting drainage diversions
and/or unnatural concentrations.
3-20 The location and size of the proposed energy dissipators shall be
adequate to prevent scouring and erosion within the canyons of
Planning Areas 11A and 12A and in a manner meeting the approval of
the director, EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks.
• 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Palentoloaical Resources
The known recorded paleontological localities within The Irvine Coast
Planning Area are mostly invertebrate fossil occurrences (some microfossil)
and, as they presently exist, do not constitute unusual or significant scien-
tific resources. Their main utility has been to furnish fossil specimens
that allow for the age determination and paleontological composition of the
Miocene rocks. They also serve as surface signboards to what may be dis-
covered during future investigations and/or during grading or other surface
modification activities accompanying development of the project area.
Among the Vaqueros and Topanga sites/localities, none are outstanding.
Most are not conducive to good collecting because of tight cementation and
marginal quality of preservation.
Because of the comparatively marginal quality of preservation of speci-
mens and absence of unique or otherwise unusual taxa, these localities are
not judged to be of special scientific importance. Therefore, they pose no
environmental constraints and require no special mitigation measures.
is 15
L
The rock units with which these localities are associated maintain a
high rating of 6-8 however, since they have the potential for yielding signi-
ficant fossils. In particular, vertebrate remains from Vaqueros and Topanga
rocks are most significant because of the critical age and evolutionary stage
of the fauna.
Archaeological Resources
The potential impacts to archaeological resources within the Irvine
Coast include direct impacts and indirect impacts. Direct impacts would
result from grading, vegetation removal, road and drainage facility construc-
tion and underground utility placement. It is assumed that these direct
impacts would comprise a significant impact and should be mitigated through
avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
In the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix K, the "capping"
of sites is considered a feasible method to preserve archaeological sites.
• Grading for infrastructure and lots within the Irvine Coast will cover and
compact several sites with fill material. The covering of a site with one to
ten feet of material can be considered "capping" to preserve it for future
generations. Burial of sites in excess of ten feet of material cannot be
considered "capping" since the permanency of such burial would preclude
future access.
Significance Assessment Methodolo
The Significance Assessment Methodology (SAM) is a multivariate analysis
designed around the Orange County resource idiosyncrasies. SAM is based on
the assumption that significance can be measured along a continuum and that
significance varies between sites and within site "types.", The primary basis
for evaluating significance is the feasibility or appropriateness of using a
site to address research questions through the presence of items, features,
associations, or other data which satisfy the conditions of implementing
specific archaeological measures.
The results of SAM are provided in Table 4.I in EIR 485. The cumulative
scores range from 10 (isolated occurrences at ICA-5) to 145 (largest Late
Period village site in Orange County). The scores are the arithmetic sum of
values 0, 11 2, or 3, applied to each of the 53 research questions. The
values represent, respectively, none, minimal, moderate and high possibility
of addressing the research question.
0 16
•
FINDINGS
The mitigation measures incorporated reduce the level of impact on
Culture Resources to an insignificant level.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures discussed here apply to the current Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 13337 and the ultimate Irvine Coast development. As part
of this PROJECT, mitigation is necessary for direct impacts of all roads,
grading and infrastructure. Since the location of some of the drainage
facilities will be further refined during the final design stages, a worst
case assumption of impact is used in this EIR. Furthermore, since any sites
not avoided by development areas and not impacted by this PROJECT may ulti-
mately be impacted by residential or tourist commercial development of the
• Irvine Coast, full mitigation of all potential direct impact Irvine Coast
sites is included in this EIR.
Archaeological Mitigation Measures Incorporated By Project Design
4-1 The mitigation of potential direct impacts to the prehistoric ar-
chaeological and paleontological sites affected by this PROJECT and
subsequent projects will include LCP policies I-3-C-2bs, I-3-G-2,
I-3-G-3, and I-3-H-2 and the following:
1) Avoidance through site planning and final design:
a. Of the 34 sites potentially impacted within the PROJECT
area, five (15%) are avoided.
General Plan/Zoning. The land use regulations governing the project
are contained within the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP
is the governing General Plan for land uses within the Irvine Coast. After
LCP certification by the California Coastal Commission on January 14, 1988,
the administration of the Coastal Development Permits became the responsibil-
ity of the County of Orange.
The LCP also designates the type and conceptual location of roadways
add. The LCP provides for a maximum allowable development of 2,600 residen-
tial dwelling units, 2,150 overnight accommodations, two 18 hole golf courses
and 100,000•square feet of freestanding commercial. The LCP Development
Map and Statistical Table Regulations and Procedures (IAP Chapter II-11)
• 17
allocate acreage and development type and intensity by planning area. Table
4.J in EIR 485 provides a statistical comparison between the Master CDP and
the certified LCP in terms of planning area land use, gross acreage, and
either maximum/estimated dwelling units (for Residential PAs) or overnight
accommodations (for Tourist Commercial PAs).
The project will not conflict with Crystal Cove State Park to the south
and east of the site. Planning processes for both the State Park and the
Irvine Coast have included the consideration of the other as an adjacent land
use. The policies of the 1988 LCP, such as edge treatment guidelines, will
enhance land use compatibility of the project with the State Park. West of
the project site are residential development in the community of Corona del
Mar. The proposed extension of SJHR and other proposed project, components
will be compatible with these adjacent land uses.
FINDINGS
is
The PROJECT will not result in any significant adverse land use impacts.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
All of the above improvements were considered during the land use ap-
provals for the LCP. The Irvine Coast will be developed in project incre-
ments. In terms of LCP consistency, these increment Development Areas (DAs)
correspond to the LCP Planning Areas and lot configuration of the proposed
Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map. The Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map lots
are substantially in conformance with the Planned Community (PC) Development
Map (refer to Figure 2.3) as demonstrated in Table 4.K and Figure 4.17. The
gross acreage as compared in Table 3.D are within the 10% increase allowable
under the LCP. The Master CDP will amend the Planned Community Statistical
Table (Exhibit Z of LCP) in accordance with LCP procedures for revision (LCP
page II-11-D). No change to the land use categories or the number of es-
timated ("Est (a)") dwelling units or accommodations is proposed. Therefore,
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
In terms of the Newport Beach sphere of influence and associated land
use designations, The Irvine Coast LCP policies and regulations take prece-
dence for lands within the LCP.
The City of Laguna Beach sphere of influence is not adjacent to the
project site. Crystal Cove State Park east of the site will serve as a
buffer between the land use site and the City of Laguna Beach.
• 18
•
6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The PROJECT impacts include those caused by subdivision of land, infra-
structure development, roads, water, sewage, drainage and utilities and the
future grading of USGS Blue Line Drainage Courses.within development planning
areas. Further, ultimate Irvine Coast LCP impacts include commercial and
residential development, golf course/greenbelt design, circulation layout,
and public works/infrastructure and construction design. These impacts are
described below. Most of the impacts described below will be mitigated
through open space dedication, and development in accordance with LCP Polic-
ies and Regulations.
Impacts to non -sensitive biological resources include: fragmentation and
loss of habitat, isolation of habitat and associated animal populations, and
decreases in local plant communities and animal populations including mule
• deer. Impacts to sensitive species such as the Orange County Turkish rugging
are identified below. The overall impacts to these resources is considered
to be non -significant. The numbers and types of studies that have been done
in the Irvine Coast should have uncovered any significant populations of
these resources. It is highly doubtful that any new unknown populations
would be discovered; however, the potential does exist and, therefore, poten-
tial impacts are the loss or disruption of these sensitive resources.
Animal dispersion corridors are present in the San Joaquin Hills. These
corridors have been mapped for the Irvine Coastal Area General Plan EIR.
None of these corridors occur within the project boundaries. All but one of
the corridors are located in the proposed open space, and therefore no im-
pacts to these corridors are expected. The dispersion corridor between Buck
Gully and Los Trancos will be impacted by the construction of Pelican Hill
Road. This impact has already been considered in the Pelican Hill Road EIR.
The LCP acknowledged that impacts would occur in drainages due to the
following: construction of 1) emergency access roads, 2) drainage and erosion
control, 3) filling or other modification of drainage courses for Pelican
Hill and Sand Canyon Roads, 4) local collectors, access road and trails
required by State or County fire officials, 5) maintenance related to fire
control, and 6) drainage and erosion control facilities of the MDRMP.
Impacts to the ESHA Drainages, including Buck Gully and Los Trancos
Canyon, will occur as the result of infrastructure development. Road con-
struction will require filling of portions of some drainages, as will the
• 19
•
construction of water and sewer lines and drainage facilities. As indicated
in the LCP, any impacts to Buck Gully and Los Trancos Canyon will be miti-
gated through the Open Space Dedication Program. Any impacts to ESHA "D"
drainages on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill will be mitigated by the
Riparian Habitat Conservation Program.
PROJECT COMPONENT IMPACTS
Road Development Impacts
Each road will impact different amounts and types of plant communities
and associated wildlife habitats. A description of the habitats disturbed
are given below for each road. This description is based on a comparison of
the Arterial Roadway Master Plan and the Vegetation Map. Field survey
information on some segments of the road was also used where applicable.
San Joaquin Hills Road. The San Joaquin Hill Road runs primarily along
• the ridgeline above Buck Gully. The road primarily impacts annual grass-
lands, with some impact to coastal sage scrub.
Upper Loop Road. The upper Loop Road will require the removal of
mainly coastal sage scrub. Only a short section of this road crosses into
annual grasslands.
Lower Loop Road. The Lower Loop Road will cross through both coastal
sage scrub and annual grasslands. This road will also impact the marine
terrace habitat on top of Pelican Hill.
Sand Canyon Avenue. As currently designed, Sand Canyon Avenue will
impact only annual Grasslands. Sand Canyon Avenue does not cross into any
identified coastal sage scrub.
Pacific Coast Highway. The widening of Pacific Coast Highway will
require the removal of annual grasslands and a small segment of coastal sage
scrub.
None of the roads directly impact riparian habitat; however, some of the
grading associated with Pelican Hill Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, and the
Lower Loop Road will encroach with the 100 foot boundary surrounding the ESHA
Category A drainages of Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully.
. Construction of all roads will impact grasslands and coastal sage scrub.
• 20
•
Construction of all roads may increase erosion down drainages. Grading
within 100 feet of ESHA Category A and B streams could result in the
loss or degradation of riparian habitat.
Construction of roads may impact populations of rare, threatened or
endangered plant species. Previous studies have not uncovered any
hitherto populations in the proposed road alignment except as already
noted for Pelican Hill Road. It is acknowledged that new populations
may occur within the development area and may be removed by construc-
tion.
• Construction of roads will fragment and degrade existing habitats. This
fragmentation will lead to isolation of wildlife populations and reduc-
tion of gene pool mixing. In addition, the isolation of wildlife popu-
lations may result in the extirpation of local populations through
natural events such as disease, overpredation and catastrophe.
• Slope stabilization for the upper and lower loop roads will extend into
portions of open space areas. Part of Buck Gully and Los Trancos Canyon
will also be impacted by slope stabilization, however impacts to ripar-
ian habitat are not anticipated.
Water Drainage Utilities and Sewer facilities Construction Impact.
• Native vegetation will be disrupted.
• Populations of rare, threatened or endangered plant species may be
impacted. There may be unknown populations of these species that will
be removed as the result of construction.
• Erosion and sedimentation down drainages may increase.
Riparian habitat in the lower course of Los Trancos Canyon may be dis-
rupted. The area crossed by the waterline has been designated an ESHA
Category A drainage.
• Habitat in ESHA Category D drainages may be disrupted.
Construction Within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Drainage Courses.
ESHA Category D drainages within Development Planning Areas will be
attended or eliminated.
0 21
•
Planning Areas 8 and 2B and Borrow Site Grading Impacts.
• Grasslands and coastal sage scrub will be cleared.
• ESHA Category D drainages within Planning Area 2B will be altered.
Expected Impacts of Ultimate Irvine Coast LCP Development
These impacts will result with the development of the proposed commer-
cial and residential areas pursuant to subsequent Coastal Development permit
applications. These are general impacts that will be analyzed to a greater
extent when development plans are made for these areas. Detailed studies
will be conducted as required for full analysis of project development im-
pacts in conjunction with these late approval permit applications. These
impacts are discussed here to illustrate the consideration of these impacts
that has occurred as part of the County and Coastal Commission 1988 LCP
• approval process.
Golf Course/Greenbelt Design
• Construction of the golf course will result in the loss of a number of
ESHA Category D drainages. These drainages have little or no biological
value.
• Construction of the golf course/greenbelt may impact populations of
rare, threatened or endangered plant species. There may be unknown
populations of these species that will be removed as the result of
construction.
Commercial and Residential Development - Direct Impacts
There will be an overall decrease in numbers of species and a reduction
in natural diversity in development areas. The developed areas will
require clearing of the native plant communities, which will result in
the loss of these areas as habitat for most species of wildlife.
• During construction, there will be an increase in erosion and loss of
topsoil due to the removal of the vegetation. Subsequent to construc-
tion, erosion may continue.
There will be the loss of an unusual habitat on top of Pelican Hill.
This area does not provide habitat for any sensitive plant or animal
0 22
•
species. It has been degraded as the result of cattle grazing and roads
associated with ranching activities. It is of interest only because it
is a unique habitat that does not exist elsewhere on the coast. The
loss of this habitat would result in the loss of a scientifically inter-
esting habitat; however, it is not considered a significant habitat as
reflected in State actions, including the decision not to acquire this
area with the 1976 State Park Land Funds and the inclusion of this area
as a development area in the 1976 and 1982 Irvine Coast Land Use Plan.
There is potential for an increase in freshwater, toxic material and
pollutants downstream and out into The Irvine Coastal Marine Life Refuge
along the coast. The increases will not be significant and these im-
pacts, if mitigated as described in the Master Drainage and Runoff
Management Plan (MDRMP), will not constitute significant adverse im-
pacts.
• Development and associated structures that occur in the canyons and
. draws may result in the loss of riparian vegetation.
• As stated above, commercial and residential development will require the
filling of ESHA Category drainages. The majority of the drainages that
will be filled are Category D. The Riparian Habitat Creation Plan is
intended to replace riparian habitat lost as the result of development
construction in these areas.
•
Construction phase of the development may impact populations of rare,
threatened or endangered plant species. There may be unknown popula-
tions of these species that will be removed as the result of develop-
ment. (See EIR 485, pp. 169-172)
Runoff from residential development and streets will result in increased
runoff into canyons and draws. The increased water levels may result in
increases in riparian vegetation. However, the excess water may also
encourage the growth of weeds such as giant reed, which proliferates in
well watered areas, and is an exotic pest in riparian areas.
Commercial and Residential Development - Indirect Impacts
The introduction of exotic will result in an overall decrease in habitat
quality for native species and a reduction in plant and wildlife popula-
tions. In addition, the increase in non-native vegetation types may
encourage the exploitation of these areas by introduced animal pests.
23
•
• Loss or reduction of rare or endangered plant populations results from
an increase in human use of an area. The increase in use tends to be
directly related to the ease of accessibility to a site.
Increased irrigation could potentially result in the increase of pol-
lutants into the canyons of the San Joaquin Hills.
Frequent fires may result in an alteration of the native vegetation in
an area.
• Maintenance and control of weeds and shrubby areas, both for fire con-
trol and landscaping purposes could result in impacts to native plants
from the indiscriminate use of pesticides and herbicides.
Provided that the dedication program and RHCP are implemented pursuant
• to LCP requirements, the impacts will be mitigated to a level of non -sig-
nificance. In addition, provided that the ESHA, erosion control, sediment
control, runoff control, grading, development/open spaces and golf course
policies are strictly adhered to, and other mitigation measures specified
below are followed in their entirety, the impacts will be mitigated to a
level of non -significance.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Local Coastal Program Policies
Within the overall context of the 1988 LCP policies, which will permit
the preservation of large areas of open space, the impacts to the non -sensi-
tive and sensitive biological resources, with the exception of the marine
terrace habitat (mitigated pursuant to the Crystal Cove Park acquisition and
per the 1982 LUP findings), are not considered to be significant. While it
is true the preservation of large areas of habitat does not replace those
areas that are lost, the overall mitigation is achieved through the develop-
ment and dedication program which provides for "balancing" of resource pro-
tection (Coastal Act Section 30007.5). The Coastal Commission considers
balancing as acceptable mitigation, because the preservation of large-scale,
contiguous areas of habitat in a natural condition, as contrasted with
isolated habitat areas located within or in close proximity to development
areas, creates a "balance" of impacts favoring the natural environment. In
addition, the guarantee of protection of the habitat as part of public open
• 24
•
space is preferable to retention of this area in private ownership, subject
to permitted existing laid use such as agriculture and grazing.
The preservation of large open space areas will also provide protection
for rare plant populations. At least one new population of Orange County
Turkish rugging was located within the open space, and other populations are
expected to be present. The open space areas are also expected to provide
habitat for populations of other rare or endangered plants impacted by the
proposed development. Sensitive species potentially present include multi -
stemmed dudleya and western dichondra, since these plants occur in habitats
similar to the Turkish rugging.
The preservation of open space will also preserve habitat for common
species such as mule deer and coyote. Some habitats will be lost for these
species but the majority will be preserved in the Wilderness Regional Park.
See Appendix H for a full description of the LCP policies relative to biolog-
ical resource of EIR 485. These policies are referenced by section and
• subsection based on the LCP. By reference, these policies are incorporated
as mitigation.
Riparian Habitat Creation Program (RHCP)
The LCP includes the development of a Riparian Habitat Creation Program
(RHCP) as part of the golf course/ green belt development. The RHCP will
result in the creation of not less than 4,000 linear feet of riparian habitat
in the golf course. This habitat is not intended as a replacement for lost
riparian habitat. Under the 1988 LCP, the RHCP will create new habitat in an
area where none currently exists.
Loss of Vegetation and Associated Animal Habitats. The LCP proposes the
preservation of approximately 6,800 acres of open space as mitigation for the
loss of these biological resources. Part of the open space has already been
committed to public open space as a result of the voluntary sale and donation
of Crystal' Cove State Park to the State of California. The remaining lands
fall into two categories: 1) Wilderness Open Space Dedication Area that will
be dedicated prior to construction and transferred based on development
vesting; and 2) Special Use Open Space Dedication/Recreation Areas that will
be dedicated to the County as development proceeds in adjoining parcels.
Crystal Cove State Park and the Wilderness Open Space Dedication Areas are
outside the current project boundary; however, the Wilderness Open Space
Dedication will occur as part of this PROJECT. The Special Use Open Space
Dedication/Recreation Areas will remain as open space within the Irvine
Coast'. The Wilderness designation will ensure the open space area is used
• 25
•
for passive recreational use only. Refer to Part I Land Use Plan, Chapter 3,
Sections A through C, for a description of the dedication areas and the
policies for those areas (Appendix of EIR 485).
The Open Space Dedication Program is described in detail in the LCP.
The basic program requires phasing approval of parcel' development with the
dedication of the open space areas. The LCP includes interim conservation
management policies for preservation of open space biological values until
dedication takes place.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. The LCP policies governing
Category A and B drainages dictate these drainages will be preserved in their
existing state. All development will be set back a minimum of 50 feet from
the edge of the riparian habitat, with certain exceptions. These exceptions
are detailed in the LCP and include emergency access roads, drainage and
erosion control, filling or other modification of drainage courses for Peli-
can Hill and Sand Canyon Road, local collectors, access road and trails re-
quired by State or County fire officials, maintenance related to fire control
and drainage and erosion control facilities of the MDRMP. Refer to Part 1,
Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 Sections D, E and F in Appendix H for ESHA policies.
ESHA Category D drainages have the lowest quality habitats. These
drainages have no riparian habitat or year-round surface water. ESHA Cate-
gory D drainages are not protected from construction impacts.
Category C habitats will be protected from degradation of water quality
through monitoring of runoff into these habitats, and the restriction of the
use and application of chemicals on the golf course and other areas to those
approved by State, County and federal agencies.
Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP)
The MDRMP anticipated impacts to these areas and was designed to mini-
mize their effect. The short-term effects of construction will be mitigated
by LCP Policy I-3-D through the following requirements:
• Slopes will be revegetated with native vegetation.
• Erosion will be controlled through the Erosion Policies set forth
in the LCP.
• Downstream erosion and gullying will be minimized through the use
of detention basins and energy impact dissipators.
. 26
•
• Construction will not take place in riparian habitats, and fill
will not be allowed within riparian areas except as described in
the LCP ESHA Habitat Area Policy Sections.
Erosion Control. The LCP policies (I-3-D,-I,-J,-K,-L) provide for ero-
sion control both during and after construction. Erosion control devices
will be installed in coordination with clearing, grubbing and grading of
upstream construction; the Grading Plan will describe the location and timing
for the installation of such devices, and will identify the parties respon-
sible for maintenance and repair. Recreation trails will be located and
constructed to minimize erosion. Refer to Part 1, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3,
Section I, in Appendix H for the Erosion Policies.
Sediment Control. The LC.
sediment control through the use
vegetation, temporary mechanical
• sand -bagging and maintenance of
channel erosion and degradation.
Section J, in Appendix H for the
policies (I-3-D,-I,-J,-K,-L) provide for
of sediment basins, maintenance of off -site
means such as hay bales, earth berms and/or
sediment movement in channels to prevent
Refer to Part 1, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3,
Sediment Policies.
Runoff Control. The LCP policies (I-3-I-1) provide that peak flood
discharge rates will not exceed peak rates of storm water runoff under nat-
ural conditions, unless the increase is no more than 10% above natural peak
rate. Other policies include control of erosion and maintenance of runoff
control facilities. Refer to Part 1, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section K, in
Appendix H for the Grading Policies.
Grading Policies. The LCP provides a number of grading policies (I-3-
D,-F,-I,-J,-K,-L) related to erosion controls, timing of grading, stabiliza-
tion of soils during grading, preservation of topsoil for later use in re -
vegetation, revegetation of cut and fill slopes, and limitation of vegetation
removal during grading. Refer to Chapter 1, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sec-
tion L, in Appendix H for Grading Policies. In addition, the following
mitigation measure is recommended:
6-1 The amount of vegetation removed during construction will be kept
to the minimum possible. During construction, shrub vegetation
will be crushed, rather than removed, because many shrubs species
will resprout from the base so long as they are not uprooted. The
project will comply with LCP Policies I-3-I-2 and I-3-J-2.
• 27
Development/Open Space Edges Policies. The LCP provides for treatment
of development/open space edges to protect open space and habitat values from
development, protect public views and/or provide fire safety. These policies
include the use of landscape buffers, ecotone development and fuel modifica-
tion methods. Refer to Appendix H, Part 1, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section
M, for the Development/Open Space Edges Policies.
Golf Course Policies. The LCP policies (I-2-A-3, I-34 and I-4-B-5)
provide for the development of the Riparian Habitat Creation Program as part
of the review and approval of a coastal development permit for the golf
course. The Program will have a defined set of criteria which include recon-
stitution of drainage profiles, and establishment of new riparian habitat
along approximately 4,000 linear feet using native vegetation (described in
the LCP). The Program will ensure that runoff from the golf course and the
water features of the golf course will be used as sources of year-round water
to support the riparian vegetation, with supplemental water provided as
needed. In addition, the Program will specify: 1) An implementation sche-
dule; 2) A minimum 15 feet width on both sides of the drainage; 3) The inclu-
sion of an understory similar to that found in Buck Gully and Los Trancos
Canyon, with careful removal of non-native vegetation to retain the integrity
of the riparian corridor; and 4) Monitoring of water quality in the riparian
drainage course. Refer to Section B, Chapter'l, Land Use Plan, Chapter 4 in
Appendix H for Golf Course Policies.
6-2 The alteration of any stream courses, including ESHA Category A, B
and D, may require the application for a 1603 Agreement from the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Consultation with
the Department must take place prior to any proposed work in these
areas. In addition, one of the conditions of approval required
review of the RHCP by the CDFG and, if appropriate, approval
through a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600
et seq. of the Fish and Game Code.
Depending on the type and extent of habitat impacts, Corps 404
permits may be required. It is not anticipated at this time that
the permit will be required; however, if necessary, appropriate
notification will be submitted to the Corps.
Mitigation Measures Incorporated by Project Design
6-3 Wilderness Open Space Dedication. Offer of Dedication will be
recorded prior to the issuance of the Master Coastal Development
Permit in accordance with LCP policies I-3-A-2, I-3-C-2, I-3-A-2a,
• 28
•
I-3-A-2b and I-3-F. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3,
Sections A through C, Appendix H of EIR 485, for a description of
the dedication areas and the policies for those areas.
6-4 Wilderness Dedication Area Transfer. Management Unit No. 1 will be
transferred to the County only after the rough grading permit
issuance for Planning Areas 8 and 2B as required for compliance
with LCP policies I-3-A-1, I-3-C-2 and I-3-A-2. Refer to Part I,
Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections A through C, Appendix H of EIR
485, for a description of the dedication areas and the policies for
those areas.
6-5 Local Park Open Space Dedication. Los Trancos Canyon and Buck
Gully will be dedicated to the County with recordation of the
abutting first final development map, as required for compliance
with LCP policy I-3-C-2. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter
3, Sections A through C, Appendix H of EIR 485, for a description
• of the dedication areas and the policies for those areas.
6-6 Riparian Habitat Creation Program (RHCP).The RHCP will be prepared
in compliance with LCP policies I-2-A-3, I-4-B-5, I-34 and I-2-A-
3, and will be approved by the Manager, Open Space/Recreation/CSA
Program Office, Environmental Management Agency (EMA) of Orange
County. Approval is prior to the issuance of the Golf Course
Coastal Development Permit. As a condition of approval, the RHCP
will be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), and, if appropriate, approved through a Streambed Altera-
tion Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and
Game Code. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 4, Section B,
Appendix H of EIR 485, for a description of the Golf Course poli-
cies.
6-7 Water Quality Monitoring Program. A Water Quality Monitoring
Program will be approved by the Chief, Environmental Resources
Section, EMA, prior to the issuance of the Golf Course Development
Permit as required by LCP policy I-3-E. Refer to Part I, Land Use
Plan, Chapter 4, Section B, Appendix H of EIR 485, for a descrip-
tion of the Golf Course policies.
6-8 Energy Dissipators. Energy dissipators will be provided at the end
of each storm drain discharging into a natural drainage course.
Peak storm discharge rates of in major streams will not exceed the
peak rates under natural conditions. An increase of not more than
• 29
ten percent (10%) of the natural flow is allowed if there is no
significant affect on the natural erosion/beach sand replenishment
process. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections I, J
and K in Appendix H of EIR 485.
6-9 Erosion Control. Erosion control plans will be approved by the
Chief, Grading Section, EMA prior to the issuance of grading per-
mits in compliance with LCP policies I-3-D-I, -J, -K, -L. Erosion
control facilities will be in place prior to or concurrent with
measurable precipitation. Soil control facilities will remain in
place and operable during the rainy season, October 15 to April 15.
Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section I in Appendix H
of EIR 485.
6-10 Landscape Plans. Landscape plans for all graded areas will be ap-
proved by the Manager, EMA Development Services Division, prior to
the issuance of grading permits. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan,
• Chapter 3, Section L in Appendix H of EIR 485.
6-11 Ecotonal Buffer. An ecotonal buffer will be used at the interface
between exotic landscaping and coastal sage scrub in compliance
with LCP policies I-3-M, I-3-M-4 and I-3-M-8. This buffer will be
shown on all landscape plans. The establishment and maintenance of
the ecotonal areas will conform to the requirements of the County
of Orange Fire Marshall and LCP policies I-3-M-5, I-3-M-6, I-3-M-7
and I-3-M-8. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections L
and M in Appendix H of EIR 485.
6-12 Slope Revegetation. All graded slopes will be stabilized and
revegetated with native plants species. Non-invasive, non-native
plant species can be used if approved by a qualified botanist.
Revegetation will take place as soon as is practical after grading
is complete in compliance with LCP policies I-3-I, -J, -K, -L.
Irrigation will be applied where necessary to establish vegetation.
Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section L in Appendix H
of EIR 485.
6-13 Vegetation Removal. Vegetation may be removed in the construction
and maintenance of proposed drainage, erosion control and related
facilities. Vegetation removal will be limited to the least re-
quired to construct and maintain such facilities (in compliance
with LCP policies I-3-I-2, I-3-J-2 and I-3-I, -J, -K, -L) and shall
be undertaken, to the extent feasible, in areas involving the least
0 30
adverse impact to riparian vegetation. Where feasible, drainage,
erosion control and related facilities have been located outside
areas containing riparian vegetation.
6-14 Drainage and Erosion Control. Proposed drainage, erosion control
and related facilities involve the least physical alteration to
natural drainage course required to construct and maintain such
facilities, and to the extent feasible involve the least adverse
impact to the drainage courses. Where feasible, drainage, erosion
control and related facilities have been 'located outside drainage
courses as required for compliance with LCP policies I-3-D, I-44-
7, I-3-D-1, I-34, I-4-B5 and I-3-F-3.
MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED BY PROJECT DESIGN
Implementing Actions Program
• The LCP also contains an Implementing Actions Program specifically
designed to be consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the
certified Irvine Coast LCP Land'Use Plan. The Program is fully described in
the LCP. Refer to Part II, Chapter 3, Chapter 6, and Chapter 8, in Appendix
H of EIR 485 for a description of the Implementing Actions Program.
The remaining impact not addressed by the 1988 LCP is the loss of the
marine terrace habitat. The 1982 LUP findings incorporated into the 1988 LUP
addressed this issue as part of the Crystal Cove Park acquisition, and the
open space dedication program offsetting the commitment of PA9 to devel-
opment. The inclusion of the top of Pelican Hill within the park was con-
sidered. The findings since that time have assumed this area would be devel-
oped and that there would be no preservation of this habitat.
County of Orange Reguired Mitigation Measures
6-15 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or at a later date as deemed
appropriate by the Manager, Development Services, the project
proponent shall submit an erosion control plan for his approval
which shall include a discussion of measures for dust pollution and
mitigation of erosion caused by wind and water. The plan shall
also provide for effective planting maintenance, irrigation and
seed germination by the project proponent prior to the rainy season
in graded areas which would otherwise remain exposed in accordance
with Subarticle 13 of the Grading and Excavation Code.
0 31
•
7. AIR OUALITY
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Daily Project Emissions Burden
Regionally, coastal plan implementation has a negligible air quality
impact because the scope of project development, in terms of project vehicle
emissions, is less than what already has been anticipated in the regional air
quality plan; however, this impact is considered insignificant. The daily
emissions burden associated with coastal area buildout based on the 1988 LCP
can be calculated using the California Air Resources Board (ARB) urban emis-
sions (URBEMIS 2) computer model. The .results of the calculations for the
1988 LCP and the previous 1982 Land Use Plan (LUP) are summarized in Table
4.L. The data shows that the total coastal area development, including
public recreational traffic, will add about 3.5 tons of carbon monoxide (CO)
and around 0.5 tons each of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides
• (NOx) to the airshed each day. Table 4.N also shows that the Irvine Coast
1988 LCP development represents a net reduction from ten to fifteen percent
of the development area emissions burden compared to the 1982 LUP. Since the
coastal area is upwind of much of the airshed during the summer smog season,
any reduction in coastal emissions will probably have a small net air quality
benefit in reduced smog formation rates in inland valleys.
Some measure of the significance of the 1988 LCP emissions can be de-
rived at by comparing them to sub -regional emissions. Table 4.0 shows that
the coastal corridor contribution on the sub -regional scale for southern
Orange County (AQMD Source - Receptor Area No. 20) is relatively small, and
represents from three to five percent of the sub -regional contribution. On a
basinwide scale, the Irvine Coast contribution is insignificant; however,
coastal development traffic will become an increasingly important portion of
the sub -regional burden as development progresses. As previously noted, the
regional impact of that development is insignificant because those emissions
are not new emissions, but rather represent a smaller burden than what had
already been planned for in the AQMD plan.
Local Impacts
The Irvine Coast Development Agreement traffic study set forth in Appen-
dix B of this EIR evaluates a number of roadway system alternatives where
traffic capacity changes may be introduced as a result of certain discretion-
ary system development actions. The air quality impacts from these actions
cannot be specifically quantified; however, they are generally tied directly
• 32
E
to the ability of any transportation system to accommodate demand within the
capacity of that system. The traffic analysis shows that diversion of traf-
fic off Pacific Coast Highway is the most important factor in creating re-
creational and residential coastal access without major traffic stagnation.
The construction of Pelican Hill Road (PHR) accomplishes that objective, even
if completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is signifi-
cantly delayed. Coastal development will be less affected by Sand Canyon
Avenue and Laguna Canyon Road. Pelican Hill Road completion is thus the most
important access system element that will prevent traffic stagnation and
increased air pollution impact potential resulting from Irvine Coast develop-
ment.
The net effect of several planned traffic improvements and of continued
CO emissions reductions from newer, cleaner cars is that future (2010) CO
levels in the area will be lower or equal to existing (1986) levels despite
any development related traffic volume increases. These calculations do not
take into account any non -local background CO levels; however, they have been
• found to be sufficiently low so that neither present nor future attainment of
the hourly CO standard is threatened in the development traffic impact area.
The roadway system capacity appears to be adequate to accommodate development
traffic growth associated with the Irvine Coast 1988 LCP with no adverse air
quality impacts.
• 33
FINDINGS
The 1988 LCP implementation will not generate emissions which exceed
AQMP estimates. With the implementation of the mitigation measures set forth
below the impacts of the proposed PROJECT will be mitigated to a level of
non -significance.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
Development consistency at the regional air quality planning level, and
roadway capacity improvements that will accommodate local traffic increases
without any adverse air quality impacts both are self -mitigating air quality
impact measures. The sub -regional impact assessment demonstrated that the
development related incremental air quality burden also is not significantly
increased.
• In accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, The Irvine Coast Development
Agreement, and the 1988 LCP, the following measures are included as part of
the 1988 LCP implementation to mitigate both short-term and long-term air
quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures'Incoraorated By Project Design
7-1 Dust suppression measures required by AQMD Rule 403, such as regu-
lar watering and early paving of the road will be implemented to
reduce emissions during construction and grading.
7-2 A Transportation System Management (TSM) plan will be initiated as
required by the 1988 LCP, upon completion of the first phase of
commercial development and will include the following components:
a. Bus services will be provided to regional activity centers
within the County for hotel visitors.
b. Bicycle paths will be provided in the design of roadways and
open space areas.
C. Shuttle services will be provided to local activity centers
include Laguna Beach and Newport Beach and the City and State
beaches during the summer peak period.
• 34
•
d. Pedestrian access to beach amenities will be facilitated via
construction of at -grade crosswalks.
Major employers with more than one hundred employees will
develop ride -share or public transit incentive programs for
their employees.
f. Bus shelters, benches and bus pockets will be provided near
the proposed project.
7-3 Parking structures will be ventilated, in conformance with the
Uniform Building Code standards, to reduce vehicle emission levels
within the facility.
8. NOISE
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
• The potential noise impacts may be segregated into two categories:
short-term impacts and long-term impacts. The long-term impacts represent
potential impacts on the land uses within the Irvine Coast. The impact of
the 1988 LCP implementation on surrounding land uses is addressed in Draft
EIR #486 for Irvine Coast Development Agreement). The analysis of potential
impacts on surrounding land use from EIR 485 is, accordingly, incorporated
here by reference.
Short -Term Impacts Construction Noise.
Construction noise will occur as a result of the proposed project.
Construction noise 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 (Part 204 of
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations).
Most of the construction will occur on undeveloped land. However,
adjacent to the north and south boundary of the project are existing residen-
tial land uses that will be subject to construction noise (Cameo Shores,
Cameo Highlands, Harbor View and Corona Highlands to the west and Spyglass
Hill to the north). Construction access will be provided primarily from
Bonita Canyon Road and Coyote Landfill access road until Pelican Hill Road is
built. Upon completion, PHR will carry the bulk of the construction traffic.
• 35
Limited construction access will be provided from Pacific Coast Highway and
San Joaquin Hills Road.
The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through
local control of construction hours. Through ordinances, the County of
Orange has adopted controls that limit the hours of construction activities
to daytime and early evening hours. Specifically, the County requires that
construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
federal holiday. Enforcement of these ordinances will help minimize any
potential noise impacts.
Future Noise Levels on the Project Site
Future traffic noise levels on the project site and in the project
vicinity were established in terms of the CNEL index by modeling the sur-
rounding roadways for the future traffic characteristics. The future road-
ways include Pacific Coast Highway, Pelican Hill Road, San Joaquin Hills Road
and Sand Canyon Avenue. A separate noise level analysis was conducted for
the Upper and Lower Loop Roads, which will serve as interior circulation for
the proposed project. Traffic volumes on these roadways will not be affected
by the implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor as these are roadways
interior to the proposed project. The volumes on the Loop Roads will remain
the same regardless of whether the corridor is constructed or not. Thus, the
noise analysis for the loop roads did not include the variable of corridor
implementation.
Existing Residential Areas Adjacent To San Joaquin Hills Road
The noise contours shown in Figures 4.24 and 4.25 show that the existing
homes adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road would be impacted by traffic noise
in the case where the SJHTC is built, when San Joaquin Hills Road (SJHR) was
connected to it, and not impacted if SJHTC is not built or SJHR is not con-
nected to SJHTC. This is important to note because this change in impact is
associated with SJHTC generated traffic and not traffic generated by this
project.
Interior Noise Levels. The proposed residential land uses of the
project are subject to meeting the 45 CNEL interior noise level, as specified
in the California Noise Insulation Standard. Using the results from Table
3.R and the figures plotting these data, it is clear that some residential
structures will require interior noise mitigation. Note that using normal
building construction practices, a wood frame structure typically achieves a
• 36
•
20 dB noise reduction with windows and doors closed and 12 dB noise reduction
with windows and doors partially open.
FINDINGS
Potential noise impacts have been mitigated to a level of non -signifi-
cance by means of the mitigation measures set forth below.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures Incorporated by Project Design
The following mitigation measures will be implemented with projects to
be built within the Irvine Coast Planned Community. These measures have been
included here to demonstrate ultimate development compliance with noise
• standards.
Short -Term Measures
8-1 County of Orange Ordinances which limit the hours of construction,
will be followed by all individual development projects.
Long -Term Measures
8-2 Mitigation measures will be undertaken to reduce the exterior noise
to acceptable levels at residential buildings, including hotels,
that are located within the 65 CNEL contours. Potential measures
include building setbacks, noise barriers or orientation of build-
ings to acts as barriers. Design and construction of a noise
barrier (wall, berm or combination wall/berm) is the most common
way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The interception of the
noise wall into the line of sight between the noise source and the
planned residential properties will be designed to achieve the
maximum amount of sound attenuation possible.
8-3 The interior noise level standard of 45 CNEL for residential units
will be implemented through measures specified at the time of
building permit application. The specific types of measures may
include increases in window thickness, reduction of window area,
and/or location of attic vents away from roadways. Architectural
plans will be reviewed at the time of building permit application
• 37
•
to ensure that the interior noise level standard of 45 CNEL is not
exceeded. Required noise mitigation measures will also depend upon
the strategies selected for exterior noise reduction, as discussed
in the above measure.
8-4 As part of the building permit process, the individual developers
must provide a "summer switch" on central HVAC air conditioning
systems to provide adequate ventilation with the windows closed in
residential units if the interior noise level requirement of 45
CNEL cannot be met with the windows open.
8-5 All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated
against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all
noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior stan-
dard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard
of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared under the
• supervision of a County certified acoustical consultant stating
that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with
applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted as follows:
Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior
to the issuance of Grading Permits, at the sole discretion of
the County, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted
to the Manager, Development Services Division, for approval.
The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise en-
vironment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical
design features to achieve interior noise standards may be
included in the report in which case it may also satisfy "b"
below.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical
analysis report describing the acoustical design features of
the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior
noise standards shall be submitted to the Manager, Development
Services Division for approval along with satisfactory
evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures
specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been
incorporated into the design of the project.
C. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all freestand-
ing acoustical barriers must be shown on the project's plot
plan illustrating height, location and construction in a
• 38
manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Development Ser-
vices Division.
d. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occup-
ancy, field testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations
may be required by the Manager, Building Inspection Division,
to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards.
8-6 All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against
the combined impact of all present and projected noise from ex-
terior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specif-
ied in the Noise Element and Land Use/Noise Compatibility Manual.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence prepared
under the supervision of the County certified acoustical consultant
that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with
• applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted to the Manager,
Development Services Division in the form of an Acoustical Analysis
Report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the
acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise
standard and which indicate that the sound attenuation measures
specified have been incorporated into the design of the project.
8-7 Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits, an Acoustical Analy-
sis Report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the
noise generation potential of the proposed project and proposed
attenuation measures to assure compliance with Orange County Codi-
fied Ordinance, Division 6 (Noise Control). The report shall be
prepared under the supervision of a County certified acoustical
consultant and submitted to the Manager, Development Services
Division,, for review and approval. The approved attenuation fea-
tures shall be incorporated into the plans and specifications of
the project.
County Of Orange Required Mitigation Measures
8-8 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permits, the project proponent
will produce evidence acceptable to the Manager, Development Ser-
vices, that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile,
operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling will be equipped with
properly operating and maintained mufflers.
is 39
�J
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Or-
dinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas will be located as
far as practicable from dwellings.
8-9 Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel map, the
owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this
tentative tract/parcel map shall prepare and record a notice that
this property may be subject to impacts from the proposed Transpor-
tation Corridor in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
Development Services Division.
8-10 Prior to the issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy, the
developer shall produce evidence to the Manager, Development Ser-
vices Division, that the Department of Real Estate has been noti-
fied that the project area is adjacent to a regional transportation
corridor which is shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arter-
ial Highways and which will pass along the side of (2,400 feel
northeasterly from) the subdivision (tentative Tract 13337 pro-
ject). The corridor is expected to be a high capacity, high speed,
limited access facility for motor vehicles, and will have provi-
sions for bus lanes and other mass transit type facilities.
9. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The following is a summary of the analysis of the proposed PROJECT
within the context of long range traffic forecasts for the future circulation
system in and adjacent to the coastal area.
The PROJECT will result in a net traffic benefit to PCH through
Corona del Mar due to the construction of Pelican Hill Road (PHR),
with more traffic being diverted by PHR than will be added by the
Irvine Coast project. Long-range traffic projections for a No
Irvine Coast Development scenario (post-2010, without Pelican Hill
Road) show substantial increases in traffic on PCH and MacArthur
Boulevard.
Traffic generated by the State Park recreational facilities (20%)
and the resort complex (30%) result in half of the ultimate pro-
• 40
jected volumes on Pelican Hill Road being related to coastal visi-
tor serving uses. The remaining traffic is split evenly between
the coastal residential traffic and through traffic.
Buildout of the Irvine Coast and all general planned development
will use about 65% of Pelican Hill Road capacity. The additional
capacity is available for areawide recreational traffic and local
through traffic diversion in the event the SJHTC is delayed.
Delayed implementation of Sand Canyon Avenue beyond completion of
the Irvine Coast development resulted in minimal change in volumes
on Pacific Coast Highway; slight increases in traffic occurred on
Pacific Coast Highway within the PROJECT area, Pelican Hill Road
and San Joaquin Hills Road. However, these increases were well
within the capacity of these facilities.
• Delayed implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor until after the buildout of the Irvine Coast development
would create significant increases in daily volumes on PCH between
MacArthur Boulevard, Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard.
University Drive, Jamboree Road and California Avenue would also
experience higher volumes. Pelican Hill Road volumes would be
essentially unchanged, and volumes on San Joaquin Hills Road would
be reduced. It should be noted, however, that impacts to MacArthur
Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway would be much more severe
without Pelican Hill Road. It serves as a critical component of
the circulation system under a No Corridor Scenario by providing a
key regional bypass around impacted facilities in Corona del Mar.
Impacts on PCH south of the project area are addressed is EIR 486
for the Irvine Coast Development Agreement.
The Irvine Coastal Area Traffic Analysis (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.)
from the 1988 Irvine Coast LCP assumes that Pelican Hill Road and the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be implemented prior to completion
(buildout) of the Irvine Coast development. The traffic analysis for the
Development Agreement, EIR #986 evaluates several other hypothetical scenar-
ios, including the effects of a No Irvine Coast Development, phased develop-
ment, and deletion or delay of several major circulation arterials for coast
development traffic use. That traffic study indicates that without Pelican
Hill Road and/or the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, substantial
traffic increases would occur on PCH and MacArthur, with Irvine Coast Planned
Community traffic and with cumulative project traffic added to the coastal
circulation network. It has been indicated that the impacts to MacArthur
• 41
Boulevard and PCH would be much more severe without Pelican Hill Road. These
alternative scenarios were evaluated in the Development Agreement Traffic
Study. However, it has been assumed that all MPAH facilities (i.e., Pelican
Hill Road and the Corridor) will be implemented as was assumed in previous
traffic studies. Therefore, the proposed Irvine Coast Plan will create
significant circulation benefits, with the construction of Pelican Hill Road.
This road more than offsets Irvine Coast traffic related impacts by sig-
nificantly reducing forecast average daily traffic on existing arterials such
as PCH and MacArthur Boulevard.
FINDINGS
Significant adverse impacts will not be created in the study area cir-
culation system by the proposed PROJECT. Potential impacts on PCH in the
City of Laguna Beach, south of the project area, as reviewed in EIR 486, are
addressed in the Findings of Certification for EIR 486 in Exhibit B, "State-
ment of Overriding considerations" which is attached to these "Findings" and
is hereby incorporated by reference.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
As indicated by the above conclusions, buildout of the proposed PROJECT
will not create a significant impact upon the existing circulation system
primarily due to the construction of Pelican Hill Road and other significant
improvements to San Joaquin Hills Road and PCH. County EMA required mitiga-
tion measures and conditions of approval which would pertain to the subject
Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map are listed below. The Transportation System
Management Plan mitigation listed in the Air Quality Section of the EIR will
further reduce peak hour trips.
County of Orange Required Mitigation Measures.
9-1 Prior to recordation of
vehicular access rights
offered for dedication
locations approved by
effect will be lettered
tor, Transportation and
with LCP Policy 1-4-E-4.
the Final Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map,
to all of the arterial highways will be
to the County of Orange except for access
the County of Orange, and notes to this
on the final map and approved by the Direc-
the Director of Public works in compliance
• 42
9-2 Prior to the recordation of the final tract except for the Vesting
"A" Tract map, the following (public/private) improvements will be
designed and constructed in accordance with plans and specifica-
tions meeting the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
a. Street names, signs, striping and stenciling.
b. The water distribution system and appurtenances which will
also conform to applicable laws and adopted regulations en-
forced by the County Fire Chief and County Health Officer.
C. Public street, private street, improvements, sidewalks, under-
ground utilities (including electrical and telephone), street
lights, trails and mailboxes.
9-3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, adequate sight dis-
tance will be provided at all intersections per Standard Plan 117
in a manner approved by the Manager, Subdivision Division. This
includes any necessary revisions to the plan such as removing
slopes or other encroachments from the limited use area.
9-4 The PROJECT shall comply with LCP policies•1=2-84, 1-3-D-la, 1-3-
D-1c, 1-3-D-1d, 1-3-F-3, 1-4-E, 1-4-E-1, 1-4-E-2, 1-4-E-3, 1-4-E-51
1-4-E-7, 1-4-E-9, 1-4-E-10, 1-4-E-14, 1-4-E-15, 1-4-E-16, 1-4-E-
19A, 1-4-E-20, 1-4-E-21, 1-4-E-22, 1-4-E-23 and 1-3-C-2b6 which
address roadway consistency with circulation plans, landform al-
teration, drainage modification, revegetation, design/construction
criteria phasing, access criteria and landscaping.
Future Circulation System Capacity. The proposed Irvine Coast Planned
Community is located in an area where planned additions to the regional and
local transportation system will significantly influence future traffic pat-
terns. This planned system is illustrated in Figure 4.36 Highways (MPAH) for
this portion of Orange County. Components of the circulation system that are
of future significance in relationship to the coastal area include the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), Pelican Hill Road (PHR), the
eastward extension of San Joaquin Hills Road, and Sand Canyon Road.
The County of Orange is currently studying the alignment and size re-
quirements of the SJHTC, and PHR is the subject of the Pelican Hill Road
Final EIR (LSA, August, 1987) which contains a detailed traffic report pre-
pared by Austin -Foust, September, 1986. Sand Canyon Avenue is part of the
MPAH.
0 43
•
The following describes the roadways to be constructed within the propo-
sed development.
Pelican Hill Road. Pelican Hill Road (PHR) will provide access to the
visitor serving and public park facilities, and will relieve congestion on
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and other coastal access routes located northerly
and southerly to the Irvine Coast. In a regional context, this road becomes
a direct access route for inland generated traffic to the recreation areas of
the Irvine Coast, as well as a bypass around Corona del Mar for regional
commuting traffic. PHR will more than offset the impacts of coastal develop-
ment by diverting non -coastal area traffic from the critical section of PCH
west of the coastal area. The extent of this diversion was shown in the
traffic profiles presented in Figure 4.37 (Traffic Profile for PCH s/o Mar-
guerite) if EIR 285, and as discussed in detail in the Pelican Hill Road
report.
• Programmed initially as a four lane arterial,• Pelican Hill Road will
eventually be expanded to its full six lane section consistent with its MPAH
classification. With the construction of the SJHTC, Pelican Hill Road will
also divert some traffic from Laguna Canyon Road, as recreational trips from
Irvine and east Orange County use Pelican Hill Road and the Transportation
Corridor as an alternative access route to the coast.
San Joaquin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road capacity is determined
by its road section. In accordance with the County of Orange EMA Transporta-
tion Element, roads are designed to provide a Level of Service D standard.
The general design criteria used in Orange County indicates that a two
lane, undivided road will meet that standard carrying less than 12,500 Aver-
age Daily Trips (ADT); a primary, four lane divided road, carrying less than
33,000 ADT; and a major, six lane divided road, carrying less than 49,500
ADT. These general capacities will vary depending upon the number and types
of access. A recent study by Austin -Foust tested the primary four lane road
assumption and estimated a maximum of 28,000 ADT on SJHR. This study indi-
cates that a primary four lane divided road will ultimately meet the demands
for SJHR, assuming implementation of the rest of the master planned roadway
system in this area, while still maintaining a Level of Service D standard.
Uooer Loop Road. Upper Loop Road capacity is determined by its road
section. In accordance with the County of Orange EMA Transportation Element,
roads are designed to provide a minimum Level of Service "D" standard. A two
lane undivided road will meet that standard carrying less than 12,500 Average
0 44
Pi
Daily Trips (ADT). These are general capacities and will vary depending upon
number and types of access. The Irvine Coast Traffic Analysis prepared by
Austin -Foust in February, 1987, and based on the NSITM Traffic Model does not
report estimated traffic volumes on ULR. However, supplemental Irvine Coast
traffic data prepared by Austin -Foust based on the NSITM Model indicates that
6,000 ADT will be carried on ULR, and will thereby be well within the Level
of Service "D" standard (Master CDP Appendix).
Lower Loop Road. Lower Loop Road capacity is also determined by its
road section. In accordance with the County of Orange EMA Transportation
Element, roads are designed to provide a minimum Level of Service D standard.
A two lane undivided road will meet that standard carrying less than 12,500
Average Daily Trips (ADT). These general capacities will vary depending upon
number and types of access. The Irvine Coast Traffic Analysis prepared by
Austin -Foust on February, 1987, does not report estimated traffic volumes on
LLR. However, supplemental Irvine Coast traffic data prepared by Austin -
Foust based on the NSITM Model indicates that 5,000 to 7,000 ADT will be
• carried on LLR, and will thereby be well within the Level of Service D stan-
dard.
Sand Canyon Avenue. Sand Canyon Avenue has a less significant function
in the Irvine Coastal area than the above facilities. As the previously
presented traffic shares indicated, over 50% of the traffic is comprised of
recreation trips and a further 20% is comprised of through trips from Irvine
and other areas to the north, and the remaining 30% is related to coastal
area development. The link has only minor importance as far as the Irvine
Coast Planned Community is concerned, serving as a means of access to devel-
opment. Prior to its construction, the recreation and through trips will use
Laguna Canyon Road and Pelican Hill Road as alternate routes to the coast.
Sand Canyon Avenue capacity is determined by its road section. In
accordance with the County of Orange EMA Transportation Element, roads are
designed to provide Level of Service D standard. A two lane undivided road
will meet that standard carrying less than 12,500 ADT. These general cap-
acities will vary depending upon number and types -of access. The Irvine
Coast Traffic Analysis prepared by Austin -Foust on February, 1987, based on
the NSITM Traffic Model, estimates traffic volumes on SCA north of PCH of
5,000 ADT when it is connected to the SJHTC. This will be well below the
Level of Service D standard.
Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway capacity is determined by
its road section. In accordance with County of Orange EMA Transportation
Element, roads are designed to provide Level -of Service D standard.. A pri-
• 45
•
mary, four lane divided road will meet that standard carrying less than
33,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The addition of a northbound lane will
increase PCH capacity to 43,000 ADT along the Irvine Coast. As a major six
lane divided road, it will ultimately have a level of Service D capacity of
49,500 ADT. These are general capacities, and will vary depending upon
number and type of access. The Irvine Coast Traffic Analysis prepared by
Austin -Foust in February, 1987, reports winter and summer traffic counts
ranging from 32,000 to 39,000 ADT. Based on the NSITM Traffic Model results,
approximately 12,000 ADT will be diverted to PHR when it is completed. The
model also estimates that when the Irvine Coast is fully occupied, 6,000 ADT
will be added back to PCH north of PHR and that PCH will have a post 2,010
traffic volume of 33,000 ADT. Therefore, improvements described for PCH will
provide adequate capacity for the Irvine Coast development and will not
exceed the Level of Service D standard.
In early phases of the PROJECT, PCH and PHR will serve as the only
circulation element in the coastal area, carrying through traffic and the
• additional local traffic generated by the coastal area development. With the
completion of Pelican Hill Road, slated .for early 1990, the section of PCH
north of Pelican Hill Road will experience a substantial reduction in traffic
volumes due to diversion onto Pelican Hill Road (see detailed discussion on
this diversion in Pelican Hill Road EIR Traffic Analysis).
•
On the southerly section of PCH, traffic will continue to grow with the
increase in regional traffic plus some traffic generated by coastal area
development. When the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is completed
(estimated to occur during 1993), additional through traffic will be diverted
from PCH, further reducing volumes on the northerly and the southerly sec-
tions. Environmental implications of any delay in the construction of the
SJHTC in terms of PCH traffic through Laguna Beach are addressed in the EIR
486 Overriding Considerations findings attached to these Findings.
As the profiles show present day volumes on PCH through Corona del Mar
are close to capacity and traffic increases over the next few years will
cause the capacity to be exceeded, resulting in longer periods of congestion.
However, the construction of Pelican Hill Road as a part of the Irvine Coas-
tal Development and the construction of the SJHTC currently under study by
OCEMA will combine to divert a significant amount of traffic currently using
PCH in Corona del Mar. As a result, the current overcapacity condition on
PCH in Corona del Mar will be significantly improved with the implementation
of these master planned improvements.
46
C�
10. VISUAL RESOURCES
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Development of the PROJECT improvements will begin to change the ap-
pearance of the Irvine Coast. New roads and infrastructure systems with
their associated grading will alter topography and vegetation. Manmade
materials will visually stand out among the material ridges and slopes.
Pelican Hill Road bisects the PROJECT site generally in a north -south direc-
tion and will be the most obvious improvement constructed on -site. Pelican
Hill Road has received previous environmental clearance by the County of
Orange, (September 30, 1987 and Coastal Development Permit by the Coastal
Commission December, 1987). The Pelican Hill Road EIR addressed the visual
impacts of road construction. Although Pelican Hill Road will alter the
visual qualities of the hillsides, it will also provide access of scenic
coastal areas to the public.
. In addition to Pelican Hill Road, Upper Loop Road (ULR) and Lower Loop
Road (LLR) will be constructed to provide access to the residential and
tourist commercial planning areas. San Joaquin Hills Road will be extended
to connect with Pelican Hill Road. Sand Canyon Avenue will be built from
Pelican Hill Road to Planning Areas 3A and 3B entrances and PCH will be
widened on the inland side. In addition to roadways, other project improve-
ments including storm drains, detention basins, water reservoirs, pump
stations and undergrounding of most overhead utilities will affect the visual
environment.
Upper Loop Road. The Upper Loop Road system will have little, if any,
impact on the area visual setting. From Crystal Cove State Park western
ridgeline or bottom of Moro Canyon, the roadway will not be visible as a
result of intervening ridgelines. From Pacific Coast Highway, portions of
the roadway may come into view, depending on the PCH vantage, however at a
distance of nearly two miles away. As indicated in Section B-B (Figure
3.28), a portion of the manufactured slope surface may be visible, but would
be difficult to detect at that distance. Also, Section A -A indicates that
views from San Joaquin Hills Road to the Upper Loop Road will be negligible.
The northerly segment of the road will be apparent from San Joaquin Hills
Road, but will diminish as Upper Loop Road extends to the east. Intervening
landforms restrict views of the entire roadway system from any single vantage
point.
Lower Loop Road. The impact of the Lower Loop Road is more apparent
than other site roadways. This is due to the fact that it extends near the
0 47
•
•
•
existing residential uses west of the site and is also proximate to PCH.
From the existing residential uses, the road is approximately 1/4 mile at its
near point. Consequently, manufactured slope area necessary for road con-
struction will be clearly visible. In addition, the road system will be
visible as it extends away from these vantage to the west. Intervening
topography restricts viewing the entire road system from any single vantage
point. For Pacific Coast Highway, the Lower Loop Road will not be readily
visible, as indicated in Section C-C. The roadway does not obtain sufficient
elevation to be viewed from Vantage Point 4. The coastal terraces and baja-
das intervene to minimize or prohibit roadway exposure.
Sand Canyon Avenue. Sand Canyon Avenue and associated road cuts will be
visible as it extends along the alluvial fan and up the ravine parallel to
the coastline. The majority of the exposure will be visible along the al-
luvial plain above PCH. However, as a result of the very slight slope angle
associated with the alluvial plain, the exposure will be minimized. Also, as
a result of the roadway extending away from PCH, actual viewing time for PCH
motorists will be extremely limited.
Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway through the PROJECT site
will require widening improvements which will include some side slope grad-
ing, paving and landscaping. Overall, the effect will be minimal on viewshed
inasmuch as the roadway currently exists although with a narrower cross-
section. Views into the site or to the Pacific Ocean will not be modified as
a result of the improvements. The only views which will be modified are
those down the PCH corridor. For those views, the modifications will focus
on a wider roadway corridor with improved landscape side slopes and setbacks.
The somewhat eroded terraces immediately adjacent to PCH will be enhanced
with these improvements.
San Joaquin Hills Road. Extension and improvement to this roadway will
be typical of the other roadways. Cuts
improve the roadway. The presence of this
into any existing visual features. The
residential vantage points to the west of
Joaquin Hills Road will be lower than t
extending over the roadway.
will periodically be required to
roadway will not modify or intrude
roadway will extend away from the
the site. For the most part, San
ie surrounding features with views
In summary, project improvements will have little effect on site fea-
tures, only moderately affecting the foreground viewshed conditions from
residential uses adjacent to the western site boundary. Construction of the
Lower Loop Road, and the widening of Pacific Coast Highway will have the
greatest visual impact. This is due to their proximity to existing residen-
m
E
ces and travelers. However, with the vastness of the site, the majority of
the improvements are distinguished by distance and disappear in the land-
scape.
FINDINGS
The PROJECT will not result in any significant adverse visual impacts
beyond those impacts acknowledged by the County and the Coastal Commission in
the Irvine Coast LCP approval which impacts were addressed and mitigated as
set forth in the LCP certification findings and so further implemented by the
mitigation measures set forth below.
FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
County Reauired
Mitigation Measures
• 10-1
Prior to recordation of final tract/parcel map or prior to issuance
of any building •permits, whichever comes first, an agreement shall
be entered into the financial security posted guaranteeing the
landscape improvements and maintenance.
10-2
Prior to issuance of any building permit(s), a detailed landscape
plan showing irrigation and landscaping design shall be submitted
for approval in order to comply with LCP policies 1-4-E-15 and 1-4-
E-16.
10-3
Prior to the issuance of final certificates of use and occupancy
and the release of the financial security guaranteeing the land-
scape improvements, said improvements shall be installed and shall
be certified by a licensed landscape architect.
10-4
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent will
provide evidence to the Director of Regulation, EMA, which in-
dicates that graded areas will be compatible with natural landform
characteristics and which in compliance with LCP policy 1-3-D-1a.
Criteria to achieve the desired effect may include:
a. Recontouring the existing landforms to provide a smooth and
gradual transition between graded slopes and existing grade
While preserving the basic topographic character of the exist-
ing site.
is
49
•
b. Variation and combination of slopes 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 to
create a more natural character wherever possible with the
graded areas.
C. Balancing between cut and fill within the overall area to
eliminate an off -site and import/export situation.
d. Obscuring slope drainage structures with a variety of plant
materials.
e. Preservation of visual opportunities from hillsides by pro-
viding for panoramic views from selected locations such as
view corridors and sensitive landscape placement.
10-5 Prior to issuance of building permits, landscape plans for land-
scape areas which will be maintained privately shall be prepared by
a licensed landscape architect as taking into account approved
preliminary landscape plan (if any), EMA Standard Plans, adopted
planned community regulations, scenic corridor and specific plan
requirements, Grading Code, recreation trail and erosion control
requirements, Subdivision Code, Zoning code, and conditions of
approval. Said plan shall include provisions for long term main-
tenance. All of the above shall be submitted for review and ap-
proval to the Manager, Subdivision Division.
10-6 Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, applicant
shall install said landscaping and irrigation system and shall have
a licensed landscape architect verify that the landscaping and
irrigation system was installed in accordance with the approved
plan. Applicant shall furnish said verification in writing to the
Manager, Building Inspection Division.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The PROJECT consists of grading and
structure, drainage and utilities. The
impacts beyond the PROJECT, to place it
Coast LCP development.
• 50
construction of roadways, infra -
discussion that follows addresses
in context of the ultimate Irvine
Emergency Services
The County Sheriff -Coroner Department will serve the Irvine Coast. The
Sheriff's. Department will need additional personnel to serve the Irvine Coast
as the population increases. The Sheriff's Department estimates services
demands of one patrol deputy per 3,000 people, based on 2.5 persons per
dwelling unit.
The City of Newport Beach Police Department does not serve the area.
The Newport Beach Police Department anticipates increased activity in Corona
del Mar due to the Irvine Coast development. Additional police personnel may
be required in Corona del Mar.
The Orange County Fire Department cannot serve the Irvine Coast from
existing facilities. Response time/mileage for an adequate level of fire
protection based on I.S.O. (Insurance Services Organization) guidelines can
not be met. The Orange County Fire Department and the developer are nego-
tiating the location and operational time frame for a nearby fire station.
One location under consideration is next to the proposed Pelican Hill Road
between the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and San Joa-
quin Hills Road. The station will be funded by the developer in accordance
with the development fee program, Ordinance #3570 and the Irvine Coast Devel-
opment Agreement.
The City of Newport Beach Fire Department wants a fire station near the
Pelican Hill tourist commercial if and when the City annexes the Irvine
Coast. The developer is studying potential sites to meet this need in the
event of annexation.
Electricity/Gas
The PROJECT will extend facilities to serve the Irvine Coast. Southern
California Edison can serve the Irvine Coast. All existing 12 KV and smaller
lines will be relocated and undergrounded in the PROJECT roads. The majority
of these relocations will be funded and constructed jointly by Southern
California Edison and the project proponent or assessment district (Irvine
Coast Master Coastal Development Permit (ICMCDP), 1-88.). No new substations
are required to serve the Irvine Coast.
Southern California Gas Company can serve the Irvine Coast. Facilities
will be constructed in the PROJECT roads (ICMCDP, 1-88).
• 51
•
Water/Wastewater
Required water/wastewater facilities are included in the PROJECT design.
Further, Irvine Ranch Water District will provide water and wastewater ser-
vices in accordance with the approved Irvine Coast Subarea Master Plan
(SAMP).
The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department does not have facilities
in the Irvine Coast. However, Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) has
the coast supply line (CSL) along PCH. The project proponent and LBCWD are
coordinating the relocation with PCH widening. The Irvine Company will
provide an easement on the inland side of PCH. This relocation is in resp-
onse to the line's age and not the Irvine Coast development. It will be
designed, funded and constructed by LBCWD.
Solid Waste
• The PROJECT will not adversely impact the County Waste Management Pro-
gram. Construction access will be coordinated with the County through Coyote
Canyon Landfill.
Transit
The PROJECT will provide additional Orange County Transit District
(OCTD) stops. Stops will be added on San Joaquin Hills Road, and Pelican
Hill Road and potentially Sand Canyon Avenue. The OCTD will review plans for
these streets as they are developed and identify locations for bus turnouts.
Telephone
The PROJECT will extend facilities to serve the Irvine Coast area.
Further, Pacific Bell will service the Irvine Coast. A boundary adjustment
between General Telephone and Pacific Telephone is being negotiated.
Cable
The PROJECT will extend facilities to serve the Irvine Coast. Further,
Community Cablevision will service the Irvine Coast.
Li bra
The PROJECT will not impact Orange County Public Library or City of New-
port Public Library facilities. The Irvine Coast may be served by the City
0 52
•
of Newport Beach, Corona del Mar branch. The Corona del Mar branch is the
smallest facility within the City, with only 3,795 square feet of usable
space. An additional library may be needed to serve the Irvine Coast.
Schools
The PROJECT will not impact schools. Ultimately, the Irvine Coast
Planned Community will generate an estimated 453 students for the Newport -
Mesa School District, and approximately 29 students for the Laguna Beach
School District. The Newport -Mesa School District anticipates that the
Irvine Coast may generate a sufficient amount of students to re -open Lincoln
Elementary School. Lincoln is leased to Newport Beach Parks Department and
used as an athletic facility. When warranted, Newport -Mesa School District
will refurbish Lincoln School, and hire additional staff to serve the Irvine
Coast.
Parks and Recreation
• The PROJECT will not impact existing park and recreational facilities.
The Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map NO. 13337 will be subdivided for dedi-
cation of Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully as future County local parks.
These dedications will come with adjoining development maps.• Issuance of
grading permits for Planning Areas 8 and 2B will require recordation of the
Wilderness Area Offer of Dedication and the transfer of Management Unit No. 1
(605 acres) as future County regional park. Further, Irvine Coast develop-
ment will provide an active public ten -acre park and private recreational
facilities within most developments. All the above are consistent with the
LCP.
Crystal Cove State Park is within the Irvine Coast Planned Community.
Irvine Coast development was anticipated in the approval of Crystal Cove
State Park Public Works Plan prepared by State Parks Department and Califor-
nia Coastal Commission. No adverse impacts are expected from Irvine Coast
development.
FINDINGS
Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce
potential adverse impacts of the PROJECT on public services and utilities to
an insignificant level.
• 53
•
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following measures are proposed to mitigate potential adverse
effects of the PROJECT.
Mitigation Measure Incorporated by Project Design
11-1 The Irvine Company will fulfill its obligation to contribute a
prorata share of cost to serve the Irvine Coast and other area
development for a County Sheriff Substation fee.
11-2 Fuel modification will be provided within development planning
areas except along Planning Areas 9, 8 and 2C. Planning Area 9
will provide a portion of the fuel modification within Crystal Cove
State Park in accordance with State Park standards. Planning Areas
• 8 and 2C will meet fuel modification needs outside the coastal zone
on adjoining Irvine Company land. Fuel modification plans will be
submitted to County Fire Department with each development applica-
tions including comfortable structures.
11-3 IRWD will design and build adequate water storage capacity in three
reservoirs plus back up pumps at PCH and the 4.1 MG reservoir to
meet County fire flow requirements. These systems will be complete
and operable prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, except for
temporary construction or home sales facilities.
11-4 The Irvine Company will provide a County Fire Station along Pelican
Hill Road, including land, facilities and equipment in a manner
meeting the approval of the manager, Fire services prior to record-
ation of the first tract map.
11-5 If a future annexation of the project area to the City of Newport
Beach occurs, an evaluation will be done to determine the need for
any additional facilities to meet the cities' requirements.
11-6 The PROJECT will incorporate where applicable the following County
of Orange Fire Department and the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department fire protection measures:
is 54
LJ
I•
n
U
Built in fire protection such as fire sprinkler systems
Street widths (minimum 32' width on private streets, parking
one side)
Cul-de-sac turning radius (minimum 401)
Access gates (minimum 14' with Knox control switches)
Hydrant spacing and location (400' residential, 300' commer-
cial)
Jones wet barrel fire hydrants. The model #J3765 is required
in commercial and high density areas
Water main size (minimum 8")
Roof coverings (minimum class "C")
Maximum length of dead end streets (500')
Vegetation control
Minimum fire flow: Residential 2500 GPM, Commercial 5000 GPM.
11-7 The PROJECT will provide where applicable Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict recommended water conservation measures and construction
management direction:
- Water conservation features such as low water use fixtures
- Drought tolerant landscaping
- Water 'and wastewater maintenance easements provided in layout
of roads and lots
- Coordination of timing of road construction and water and
sewer facilities to the maximum extent possible.
11-8 The PROJECT will incorporate in road design the following the
Orange County Transit District (OCTD) design parameters:
- All the existing stops should be retained, and passenger
amenities such as bus shelters and paved, lighted and handi-
capped accessible pedestrian walkways should be provided
between the bus stops and various project buildings.
- Bus turnouts, consistent with the District's Design Guidelines
for Bus Facilities, should be provided at existing stops, and
those identified in the future.
11-9 The project shall comply with LCP policies I-3-C-2651' I-3-C-266, I-
4-F-1, I-4-F-2, I-4-F-31 I-44-5 and I-4-F-7 which address infra-
structure facilities needed, concept plans, design criteria and
location.
55
County Reouired Mitigation Measures
The following measures are required by the 1988 LCP to mitigate the
potential adverse effects of the project on planned public works/infrastruc-
ture systems.
11-10 Necessary above ground public works, infrastructure, and utility
facilities will be located and designed to minimize visual impacts.
11-11 All necessary water service improvements, including pipelines,
booster stations, and other facilities will be designed in con-
junction with the final tract maps.
11-12 The water system will be designed to provide adequate fire flows.
Water reservoirs will be buried underground.
11-13 All necessary sewer service improvements, including pipelines, pump
• stations,•and other facilities will be designed in conjunction with
final tract maps.
11-14 All necessary drainage improvements, including storm drains, deten-
tion basis within drainage courses, and other facilities will be
designed in conjunction with final tract maps.
11-15 Prior to recordation of the first development tract/parcel map, the
project proponent will submit water improvement plans to be ap-
proved by the Manager, Fire Services for fire protection purposes
and to comply with LCP policies I-4-F-3 and I-3-M-10. The adequacy
and reliability of water system design, location of valves, and
distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated in accordance with
Insurance Services Office suggested standards contained in the Fire
Suppressing Rating Schedule. A financial security will be posted
for the installation, if required.
11-16 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction
and to comply with LCP policy I-4-F-4, the project proponent will
submit evidence of the Manager, Fire Services that a water supply
for fire protection is available.
11-17 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent will
provide a site plan showing building locations and private drive
arrangements for approval by the Manager, Fire Services on any
• 56
•
portion of the subdivision map served by private streets not previ-
ously depicted.
11-18 Prior to recordation of each development tract/parcel map, the
project proponent will submit a construction phasing plan for
approval by the Manager, Fire Services. The purpose of this review
is to evaluate the adequacy of emergency vehicle access for the
number of dwelling units served.
11-19 Prior to the issuance of grading permits in order to comply with
LCP policies I-3-M-5, I-3-M-6, I-3-M-7 and I-3-M-9, the project
proponent will submit a fuel modification plan and program for
approval by the Manager, Fire Services in consultation with the
Director, Parks and Recreation. The plan will show the special
treatment to achieve an acceptable level of risk in regard to the
exposure of structures to flammable vegetation and will address the
method of removal and installation (mechanical or hand labor) and
• provisions for its continuous maintenance. The fuel modification
plan will identify appropriate methods to reduce impacts on bio-
logical resource values or on visually sensitive areas. Areas of
particularly high biological or scenic value may require alteration
of development design or special treatment of fuel modification as
the appropriate method of reducing fire hazard. The approved fuel
modification plan will be installed under the supervision of the
Manager, Fire Services and completed prior to the issuance of
applicable Certificates of Use and occupancy.
•
11-20 Prior to recordations of each development tract/parcel map, the
project proponent will file a Notice with the Department of Real
Estate meeting the approval of the Manager, Fire Services that
certifies that potential property owners within the boundaries of
the map are aware that the property is in a high extreme fire
hazard area due to wildland exposure.
11-21 Prior to -recordation of each tract/parcel map , the project propon-
ent will offer an irrevocable fire protection access easement as
required by the Manager, Fire Services for any private roadways
within the development. The easement will be continuous with the
travelway for the private drives as shown on the approved use
permit, and will be dedicated to the County of Orange. The CC&R's
will contain provisions which prohibit obstructions within the fire
protection access easement and also require Manager, Fire Services
57
approval of any modifications such as speed bumps, control gates,
or changes in parking plans within said easements.
11-22 Prior to recordations of each tract/parcel map , the project propo-
nent will submit construction details for any controlled entry
access fo"r approval by the Manager, Fire Services. These details
shall include width, clear height, and means of emergency vehicle
override.
11-23 Sewer lines, connections, and structures will be of the type, and
installed in the location as specified in "Guidelines Requiring
Separation Between Water Mains and Sanitary Sewers, Orange County
Health Department, 198011, in a manner meeting the approval of the
Manager, Environmental Health and in compliance with LCP policies
I-4-F-6 and I-4-B-13.
11-24 Prior to the recordation of each final development tract/parcel
• map, the following (public/private) improvements will be designed
and constructed in accordance with plans and specifications meeting
the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
a. Street names, signs, striping and stenciling.
b. The water distribution system and appurtenances which
will also conform to applicable laws and adopted
regulations enforced by the County Fire Chief and County
Health Officer.
C. Public street, private street, improvements, sidewalks,
underground utilities* (including electrical and
telephone), street lights, trails and mailboxes.
12. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
LCP ALTERNATIVES
The 1988 Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is the product of several
revisions to the original plan prepared in 1976. The plan has undergone
extensive environmental documentation, public review and comment, and modifi-
cation to accommodate public agency and interest group concern regarding
sensitive issues. In addition to three previous versions of the LCP, three
Environmental Impact Reports (see Introduction) have been prepared which
provide thorough analysis of project alternatives, including land use design
• 58
and intensity, layout and open space preservation areas. Thus, the proposed
project has met CEQA requirements for alternatives analyses in the previous
documents.
This section evaluates two areas for which alternatives have been eval-
uated subsequent to the 1988 LCP and for the current project design. These
areas include designs for roadways and hydrology facilities. Information has
been provided by The Keith Companies and Rivertech, Inc. for the alternative
roadway and hydrology analyses, respectively.
It should be noted that the 1988 LCP requires that the least damaging
alternative be selected for these facilities, in consideration of the follow-
ing factors: 1),the least amount of disruption; 2) most economical; 3) min-
imal land disruption; and 4) geotechnical considerations. The following
discusses the alternatives considered for those features in addition to the
reasons the proposed designs were chosen. '
• Internal Circulation Alternatives
The circulation system which will be utilized to access the Irvine Coast
includes Pacific Coast Highway, an extended San Joaquin Hills Road, a pro-
posed Pelican Hill Road and the Upper Loop Road and Lower Loop Road, the
latter two for internal circulation. Alternative designs of Pelican Hill
Road have been analyzed in Final EIR No. 460 (LSA Associates, Inc., Septem-
ber, 1987). This section evaluates alternative improvement designs for Pac-
ific Coast Highway and the Upper and Lower Loop Roads.
Under and Lower Loop Roads. Selective alternative alignments and design
of the Upper and Lower Loop Roads for internal project circulation were based
upon several criteria: 1) alignment on stable ground within Development
Planning Area 2) design consistent with the County approved standards,
including horizontal and vertical grades; and 3) minimized grading.
The preferred alternative alignment as shown on the tract map meets the
above criteria, whereas the alternative (previously evaluated) alignments, do
not.
Alternative alignments were not evaluated for the Lower Loop given the
geologic and topographic constraints of the area. The preferred alignment
minimizes cutting and filling, stays within the development planning areas,
is located on stable ground and meets County design standards.
0 59
Hydrology Facilities
Reservoirs. Alternative designs and site locations for reservoirs were
analyzed by The Keith Companies. Fourteen (14) alternative reservoir loca-
tions which were evaluated. Three (3) sites were selected for proposed 6.1
million gallon (MG), 3.4 MG and 2.2 MG buried reservoirs.
The criteria used for determining appropriate reservoir sites included
the following:
• Minimum reservoir height and elevation, hydraulic gradeline;
• Geotechnical considerations;
Topographic features;
• Visual impacts;
Roadway access.
Table 5.A of EIR 485 provides a list of the considered reservoir sites
• and the reasons each was or was not selected, based on the above criteria.
Final selection of the reservoir sites was based primarily on minimizing cut
and fill slopes.
Storm Drain Outlets. Storm drain outlets within the Irvine Coast Plan-
ned Community were located to minimize the number of outlets and create the
least environmental damage. Location criteria included the following:
Direct outlets into existing drainages that are sized to receive
the anticipated storm runoff;
No diversion of storm runoff from one major canyon to another;
Select discharge locations utilizing soil stability, outlet velo-
city of water, substrate and grade of slope;
Discharge locations that will take advantage of roadway fills for
detention;
Outlet selection that will minimize impact to natural drainage
courses.
As part of the objective to minimize impact to natural drainage courses,
the proposed Master Drainage Improvement Plan (Figure 3.23) has deleted three
discharge locations which were shown on the LCP Backbone Drainage Concept
(LCP, Exhibit U). These three discharge points were previously planned as
part of the Pelican Hill Road alignment (Segments 4 and 5) and would dis-
charge runoff into Los Trancos Canyon. In addition, the Master Drainage
Improvement Plan also provides for modification of one discharge location
along the Upper Loop Road, by rerouting flow directly into the adjacent
0 60
P
channel rather than down a side slope which abuts the road, as previously
planned in the LCP.
Waterline in Wishbone Hill. This preferred alignment represents the
least damaging alternative, minimizes unstable ground and avoids sensitive
habitat to the maximum extent possible.
Detention Basins. Detention basin facilities are located throughout
the PROJECT area. The following identifies the criteria by which locations
were chosen:
• Capture development runoff and direct it into major watershed
drainage.
• Eliminate all diversion of development runoff from one major canyon
to another.
Minimize landslide/erosion resulting from points of discharge.
• Maintain flow in major canyon bottoms to within 10% of existing
• quantities.
• Minimize impact to natural drainage courses.
• Locate on site of geological/soil stability.
All locations chosen represent the least damaging locations for deten-
tion basins within the project areas and are consistent with LCP Policies.
In addition to detention basin location, the point of discharge into the
canyon is also being evaluated. A soils engineer and civil engineer are
currently working to evaluate each canyon where point of discharge is pro-
posed. The engineers are identifying the most stable point to release water.
This evaluation is being done to ensure a minimal amount of erosion from
points of discharge into primary canyons. Mitigation Measures No. 3-4 re-
quires compliance with the objective of erosion minimization.
Golf Course Drainage Facilities. Alternative golf course drainage
designs were considered. First, unmitigated drainage resulted in increases
in storm flows in excess of the 10% limit stipulated in the 1988 LCP.
Second, the use of detention basins was considered to reduce this anticipated
increase to the 10% limit. To address, the State Parks Department concerns
regarding erosion on the coastal terrace of Crystal Cove State Park, the
third and preferred alternative was developed which refined the detention
basins to reduce storm flows to less than present volume.
• 61
13. GROWTH INDUCTING EFFECTS
Irvine Coast infrastructure extensions will provide access to undevel-
oped areas. Growth inducing impacts commonly associated with construction of
public facilities associated with development of a major planned community
will affect the distribution, intensity and timing of development in adjacent
areas. Consistent with the assessment of long-term transportation needs, the
Traffic/Circulation section of EIR 485 and the traffic analysis for EIR 486
(The Irvine Coast Development Agreement) both describe the land use assump-
tions of the Irvine Coast traffic analyses, which assumptions include build -
out of areas served by Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue, in accor-
dance with existing land use designation. Accordingly, Pelican Hill Road and
Sand Canyon Avenue will accommodate land uses adjacent to the planned com-
munity as well as land uses proposed within the 1988 Irvine Coast LCP im-
plementation.
Pelican Hill Road was recently approved by the County of Orange (Septem-
ber 30, 1987) and the California Coastal Commission (December 9, 1987) to
accommodate existing and future needs in the area. Future development in
these areas has been considered by surrounding cities (the project is within
the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach), the County , and the
Coastal Commission during the approval of Pelican Hill Road and the Irvine
Coast LCP. Subsequent to approval of the LCP, the City of Irvine has indi-
cated that a small portion of the LCP area is within their sphere of in-
fluence.
In June, 1988, the residents of the City of Irvine will vote on an
initiative land use measure that would establish a system of phasing open
space dedications with development approvals. If approved, the initiative
measure would commit to open space uses approximately 3,000 acres in the
inland costal hills, outside the coastal zones, thereby limiting any growth
inducing impacts on those resources.
The LCP Circulation Phasing Plan ensures that arterial roads will be
phased with development so that excess capacity is -created to redirect traf-
fic off already congested roads and to meet project circulation demands.
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130) require that cumulative impacts be
discussed when they are significant. The discussion should include either a
list of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts or a summary of projections contained in an
adopted General Plan or related planning document which is designed to eval-
uate regional or areawide conditions.
is 62
For the Irvine Coast PROJECT, the most relevant planning information
includes the other local projects which are reasonably anticipated for pur-
poses of projecting future development. In Orange County, approved projects
are monitored through the County required unincoporated' annual monitoring
reports and the Development Monitoring Reports. General Plans and Local
Coastal Programs (where applicable) of individual cities are used for the
same purpose.
As a first step in determining a potential cumulative impact area for
the Irvine Coast Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map, the project was considered
in a geographical context with nearby developed and undeveloped lands. The
developable areas most likely to contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunc-
tion with the Irvine Coast ultimate LCP development are located within the
unincorporated areas of south Orange County and the immediate areas of the
cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach.
• The study area for the cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the San
Diego Freeway (I-405) to the north, an area just east of Crown Valley Parkway
to the east, the Pacific Ocean shoreline to the south and Newport Boulevard
to the west. The study area encompasses land available for development in
the vicinity of the Irvine Coast where the potential for similar impact
exists.
One project located outside the study area boundary has been included in
the analysis due to its potential contribution to cumulative impacts. This
project, The Banning Ranch in unincorporated Orange County, has been included
due to the proximity to Pacific Coast Highway and potential effect on traf-
fic.
For purposes of examining the potential cumulative impacts of growth in
the PROJECT area, information on past, present and reasonably anticipated
future projects was obtained from the County of Orange and the cities of
Irvine, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach planning departments. These projects
are presented in Tables 7.A through 7.D, and the locations and the study area
boundaries are illustrated in Figure 7.1. Projects compiled in the tables of
EIR 485 are, at a minimum, currently under construction, have received ap-
proval by the appropriate city council or board of supervisors, or are in the
planning process. The lists of future projects in the study area are as
comprehensive as feasible given the recordation system of each jurisdiction
involved. The lists were compiled in order to illustrate geographical con-
centrations within the study area and to determine the focus of analysis by
creating conceptual subregions, as identified later in this discussion.
• 63
Based on the issues associated with the Irvine Coast Planned Community,
related planning and circulation issues have been evaluated not only in the
context of other developments, General Plan Amendments, and specific area
plans, but also in light of road and transit improvement plans. For example,
the City of Newport Beach and the State are participating in studies to widen
Pacific Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Newport Boulevard. The
County of Orange and State are presently participating in studies for the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. These studies may eventually affect
the transportation system in this area of the County and ultimately growth in
the region.
The discussion set forth in pages 301-334 of EIR 485 analyzes potential
cumulative impacts by environmental topic. Although CEQA guidelines require
that cumulative impacts be discussed only when they are significant, this
discussion includes a cumulative impacts analysis for each environmental
topic analyzed in the EIR. Due to the sensitivity of existing resources in
• this area of the County (e.g., unique landform features, open space, aes-
thetic value), it was considered necessary to present the analysis which lead
to the conclusion of non -significant cumulative impacts for applicable top-
ics. Extensive environmental documentation was available for several sub-
regions in the study area with existing environmental conditions similar to
the Irvine Coast Planned Community particularly the planned communities in
close proximity to the Irvine Coast. Therefore, this analysis includes a
greater level of detail than that required in order to adequately address
potential cumulative impacts in this area.
Committed, approved and reasonably anticipated projects will be dis-
cussed in terms of their influence on the environmental topics identified
below. The cumulative effects of these projects will be discussed in general
terms based on available information. The area of analysis is mostly ur-
banized to the west and a mix of open space and urban development areas to
the east.
Due to the extent of the analysis and the topical approach followed in
EIR 485, the cumulative impact analyses set forth at pages 301-334 of EIR 485
are hereby incorporated by reference.
15. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b), EIRs must include
a discussion describing significant impacts of a project, which cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. This summary briefly lists those
• 64
•
•
cumulative significant adverse impacts which will result with implementation
of the Irvine Coast.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The project will not result in any significant adverse impacts beyond
those impacts acknowledged by the County and the Coastal Commission in the
Irvine Coast LCP Approval which impacts were addressed and mitigated as set
forth in the LCP Certification findings and as further implemented by the
mitigation measures.
LANDFORM MODIFICATION
Portions of the topography of the project site will undergo prmanent
change through grading operations.
Cumulative and long-term effects of the PROJECT and Irvine Coast Devel-
opment are the loss of biotic habitats, change in land use to an urban devel-
opment and changes in the visual character of the area. However, it should
be noted, that past County of Orange and Coastal Commission actions have
considered these effects and determined that the PROJECT and Irvine Coast
Development meets Coastal Act Policies. All significant development impacts
were addressed, and extensive mitigation measures were adopted pursuant to
the LCP findings.
The range of beneficial uses of the site have been served through the
preservation of over 76 percent of the Irvine Coast Planned Community as
permanent open space and the development standards contained in the LCP.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e) also states that the reasons why
the proposed PROJECT is justified now, rather than be reserved for further
alternatives, should be explained. As previously discussed in this EIR, the
Irvine Coast Development allowed under the 1988 LCP, represents the evolution
of alternatives considered for the site for more than a decade. The Irvine
Coast LCP land uses have been refined and fixed to reflect the public policy
•concerns expressed during the many plan hearings. The Coastal Commission has
found that the PROJECT and the Irvine Coast Development provides significant
public benefits and is consistent with Coastal Act policies; therefore, there
is no need to reserve an option for further alternatives. The analysis of
65
h in
CEQA
EXHIBIT B
TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS
A. STATUTORY_ FINDINGS
No overriding considerations have been specifically identified for this
project, therefore the overriding considerations set forth in FEIR 486 are
hereby incorporated by reference.
The Board of Supervisors finds that the mitigating changes which have
been incorporated into the project and discussed fully in Exhibit A will
avoid or substantially lessen all significant effects identified in FEIR 460
except visual resources, landform modification and cumulative traffic impacts
on PCH in Laguna Beach (as noted in the Development Agreement EIR 486) in the
event the SJHTC is delayed. Exhibit A also sets out the specific rationale
• for this finding with respect to each significant effect that is avoided or
mitigated.
However, as indicated in the discussion which follows, economic, social
and other considerations make it infeasible to avoid or substantially lessen
through the use of mitigation measures or project alternatives the one other
significant effect identified in FEIR 460. Therefore, the Board of Super-
visors finds that this effect is unavoidable for the reasons set out below.
The Board of Supervisors also finds that the benefits of the project
will outweigh the one adverse environmental effect that has been found to be
unavoidable. Based on this finding, the rationale for which is also set out
below, the Board of Supervisors finds that the unavoidable adverse environ-
ment effect is acceptable, and therefore approves the project.
B. ANALYTICAL BASIS'FOR THE STATUTORY FINDINGS
1. Potential Environmental Effect
The project will result in the following unavoidable effect:
The project will not result in any significant adverse impacts beyond
those impacts acknowledged by the County and the Coastal Commission in the
Irvine coast LCP approval, which impacts were addressed and mitigated as set
forth in the LCP certification findings and as 'further implemented by the
mitigation measures. Poritons of the topography of the project site will
• undergo permanent change through grading operations.
67
•
In the event of a long-term delay in the implementation of the SJHTC,
PCH volumes south of Laguna Canyon Road would be increased by approxi-
mately 10,000 vehicles per day.
The Board of Supervisors finds that the above effect cannot be avoided
through project mitigation measures or project alternatives because the
alternatives are infeasible due to economic, social or other considerations,
(as set forth in Sections 2 and 3 below). The regional environmental, econ-
omic and social benefits identified in Sections 3, 4, and 5 below outweigh
the potential adverse environmental effect outlined above.
As a matter of public policy, the widening of PCH through the City of
Laguna Beach is considered infeasible due to the opposition of .the City and
• much of the community.
Project generated traffic will pass through the City of Laguna Beach
which presently has a policy of opposing the widening of PCH, thereby creat-
ing a "planned deficiency" on PCH within Laguna Beach city limits. However,
any impacts on Laguna Beach are more than offset by (a) the diversion of PCH
traffic onto Pelican Hill Road which traffic would otherwise pass through
Corona del Mar; (b) the provision of enhanced coastal access to Crystal Cove
State Park for inland residents of Orange County, provided by Pelican Hill
Road and project funded improvements to PCH within the project area; (c) the
provision of enhanced public access via Pelican Hill Road and PCH to the Buck
Gully/Los Trancos Canyon regional open space area to be dedicated by the
project and (d) relief ultimately to be provided to PCH through Laguna Beach
by the construction of the SJHTC, the implementation of which is facilitated
considerably by the project's required dedication of SJHTC right-of-way. The
aforementioned regional benefits could not be attained under the No Project
Alternative, along with the economic, social and environmental benefits of
the project set forth in Section 4 below and, therefore, any potential sig-
nificant impacts on PCH traffic are outweighed by said benefits.
With respect to Laguna Canyon Road, project generated impacts are mini-
mal. Subsequent to the circulation of EIR 486, the City of Laguna Beach
officially opposed the Caltrans request to the California Coastal Commission
for federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) certification of a proposed
widening of Laguna Canyon Road in the vicinity of the "Big Bend" area (which
was supported by the County of Orange and the Orange County Transportation
• Commission). The City of Laguna Beach opposition to the Caltrans Laguna
68
Canyon Road project occurred, subsequent to the Coastal Commission's adoption
of the CZMA Guidelines for the Big Bend widening project (following the
initial Coastal Commissions denial of CZMA certification), subsequent to the
certification of the Irvine Coast LocaL Coastal Program, and subsequent to
the City of Laguna Beach's certification of the Final EIR for its own Syca-
more Hills project (which found that the Sycamore Hills project contributes
cumulatively to the need for the widening of Laguna Canyon Road). According-
ly, the County hereby determines that the City of Laguna Beach's action
constitutes the City's acceptance of a "planned deficiency" on Laguna Canyon
Road and attendant cumulative traffic impacts of all projects approved by the
County and known to the City at the time of its February, 1988, opposition to
the Caltrans project. In the context of minimal project generated impacts,
and City of Laguna Beach policy regarding the widening of Laguna Canyon Road,
the overall economic, social and environmental benefits of the project out-
weigh its environmental effects.
• 3 Feasibility of Alternatives
In light of the extensive environmental documentation, public review and
participation, and the examination of alternatives contained therein for'the
previous plans, the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program has met CEQA require-
ments for an alternatives analysis. The three previous EIRs relating to the
proposed development of the Irvine Coast area (EIRs 134, 237, and 460) and
the LCPs/LUPs have included detailed analyses of alternatives, such that they
met the CEQA Guidelines' requirements to "focus on alternatives capable of
eliminating any adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of
insignificance" (Section 15126 (d) (3), and discussions which "set forth only
those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice, and those which
foster informed decision making and informed public participation" (Section
15126 (d) (5). As set forth in the California Coastal Commission Certifi-
cation Findings for the Irvine Coast LCP, Irvine Coast land uses reflect
significant modifications in kinds location and intensity of use in response
to CEQA reviews of the LCP between 1978 and 1988.
a. Review of Alternatives. The EIR evaluates the use of a Development
Agreement (Project) as a mechanism to assure realization of Orange County and
Irvine Company objectives in the implementation of the 1988 Irvine Coast LCP.
The 1988 LCP allowed for other mechanisms to grant the desired assurances. A
Vesting Tentative Tract Map is an alternative mechanism. CEQA also requires
review of the No Project (Development Agreement) Alternative.
b Vesting Tentative Tract Mao. Vesting Tentative Tract Map is
Is partial alternative to the Development Agreement in that is establishes
69
•
vested right, on approval or conditional approval of the vesting Tentative
Tract Map, to proceed with development substantially in conformance with
ordinances, policies and standards in effect on the date the application is
decreed complete (Government Code Section 66498.1). This Alternative does
not legally assure implementation of the 1988 LCP and, therefore, would not
assure the meeting of the County's and The Irvine Company's objectives as
stated in the EIR.
c_ No Protect Alternative. The No Project Alternative means no Irvine
Coast Development Agreement. The Development Agreement is an implementing
mechanism for the 1988 certified Irvine Coast LCP. It assures completion of
the project under the LCP, with up front open space dedication and phased
construction of infrastructure and service facilities.
A development agreement or other such mechanism was specifically con-
templated as a means of implementing the LCP open space dedication program
• and circulation phasing plan. It is intended to assure implementation of
certain public benefits and provide the landowner assurance of certainty of
development. Without the development agreement, the objectives of the County
of Orange and The Irvine Company would not be met. Specifically, the pro-
vision of additional capacity to serve local and regional transportation
needs, early dedication of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
(SJHTC) right-of-way and open space may not be possible.
Potential impacts from delayed construction of Pelican Hill Road are
presented in the traffic and circulation analysis of EIR 486. These analyses
conclude that, without this facility in post 2010 conditions, significant
additional traffic volumes would be experienced on existing and master plan-
ned arterial highways such as Pacific Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, and
Jamboree Road. Construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road in the short-
term will alleviate demand on regional and local roadways, in addition to
providing alternative routes for coastal access.
4. Project Benefits
The Board of Supervisors finds that the following benefits will result
from the proposed project:
The benefits of the 1988 LCP which are further assured by the
development agreement include:
1) Early dedication of 2,666 acres of open space, with an ac-
celerated and simplified incremental acceptance schedule;
•
70
•
2) Additional habitat area protection in the dedication of over
1,100 acres of open space in Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon
and Muddy Canyon;
3) Dedication of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
(SJHTC) right-of-way from future Sand Canyon Avenue' to Mac-
Arthur Boulevard prior to recordation of the first development
tract map;
4) Early construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road (PHR)
from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to MacArthur Boulevard. (Two
lanes are creditable toward the public benefits proposed in
consideration of the development agreement for the segment
from project boundary to MacArthur).
• 5) Extension of two lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road (SJHR) from
its eastern terminus to the future PHR;
6) Widening of PCH along the frontage of the development areas;
7) Development Plan emphasis on visitor serving facilities which
carry out strong Coastal Act priority policies; and
8) Protection of coastal viewshed through deletion of office
commercial uses, reductions in building heights from that
allowed in the 1982 Irvine Coast LUP, and the addition of two
golf courses along the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill.
b. In addition to the above public benefits, the following new con-
tribution to public facilities, subsequent to the adoption of the
Irvine Coast LCP, are proposed in consideration of the development
agreement:
1) Increase in early Pelican Hill Road construction from four
lanes to six lanes.
2) Early dedication for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor (SJHTC) right-of-way between future Sand Canyon
Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, consisting of approximately
5.3 miles (300 gross acres).
3) Early financial contribution toward the SJHTC Fee Program.
71
•
4) Standby commitment for pro rata share payment of costs for
1990 Action Plan for South County road improvements.
5) Standby commitment for pro rata share payment of costs for the
design and installation of traffic signals in the event County
adopts a Traffic Signal Fee Program.
6) Advance funds for design and construction of Fire Station No.
52.
7) Financial contributions, toward construction and/or improvement
of County library facilities.
8) Provision of funds for construction of a Sheriff substation,
should the need for such a facility be identified by the Board
• of Supervisors. Funds will be provided in excess of devel-
oper's pro rata share, and will be paid in such a manner so
that funds are available to construct facility at the time
facility is needed.
9) Provision for 'child care facilities.
10) Two additional lanes on San Joaquin Hills Road from existing
terminus to Pelican Hill Road.
5 Findings Regarding Overriding Economic..Social and Environmental Benefits
a Potential Traffic Impacts. EIR 486 analyzes a broad array of
alternative future transportation scenarios under both the project and the No
Project Alternatives. Although implementation of the Irvine Coast LCP has
some potential limited traffic impacts (i.e. 1990 impacts prior to the open-
ing of Pelican Hill Road, additional traffic on Laguna Canyon Road, addition-
al net traffic on PCH south of Sand Canyon even with the implementation of
the SJHTC), and one potential significant impact in the event of a delay in
the construction of the SJHTC (i.e. additional traffic on PCH south of Sand
Canyon), overriding benefits of the project identified in Section 3 and 4
above outweigh these potential effects.
Previously Approved and Presently Contemplated. The Friends of the Irvine
Coast (letter of March 16, 1988) requested an elaboration of EIR 486
• buildout/traffic assumptions in relation to a number of projects that pres-
72
•
ently have approved development agreements or anticipate the possibility of
development agreements. As is indicated in the Response to Comments, the
long-term cumulative development allowed in the planning areas listed in the
"Friends" letter has been assumed in the traffic models used in the Irvine
Coast Development Agreement EIR 486 Traffic Study. In fact, the cumulative
traffic assessment question is the central focus of this environmental review
due to the long-term regulatory assurances provided by the development agree-
ment. A wide array of traffic scenarios is summarized in Exhibit A, Section
C.1, which is incorporated by reference in this finding. Two of the specific
findings of the previously mentioned section highlight the overriding social,
economic and environmental benefits of the Project versus the No Project Al-
ternative in the context of long-term regional development under approved
plans and development agreements:
• Long-range traffic projections for a No Irvine Coast Development
scenario (post-2010) without Pelican Hill Road show substantial
• increases in traffic on PCH and MacArthur Boulevard. Implementa-
tion of Pelican Hill Road would serve to divert substantially more
traffic from these facilities then development of the Irvine Coast
Planned Community adds, thereby providing a net capacity benefit to
the coastal circulation system.
Delayed implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor until after the buildout of the Irvine Coast development
would create significant increases in daily volumes on PCH between
MacArthur Boulevard, Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard.
University Drive, Jamboree Road and California Avenue would also
experience higher volumes. Pelican Hill Road volumes would be
essentially unchanged, and volumes on San Joaquin Hills Road would
be reduced. It should be noted, however, that impacts to MacArthur
Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway would be much more severe
without Pelican Hill Road. It serves as a critical component of
the circulation system under a No Corridor scenario, by providing a
key regional bypass around impacted facilities in Corona del Mar.
As is determined in subsection "b" above, the County has analyzed the
Impacts of the project in light of concerns regarding 1) the need for re-
gional road and traffic improvements; 2) the lack of general funding for such
improvements from the customary sources; 3) the past practices of public
agencies of developing road and traffic improvements in a fragmented manner
and in a relatively inefficient and uneconomic manner in conjunction with
specific development projects; and 4) preservation of major, regionally
• significant open space areas. In response, the County has focused on the
73
Ll
development of improved approaches to finance and develop a regional system
of roads and traffic facilities in an accelerated, efficient and economic
manner in order to provide for the anticipated population of the County.
The Development Agreement will provide the necessary assurances and
predictability which will permit the County to proceed to achieve signifi-
cant, regional roadway improvements and open space dedications in an acceler-
ated, coordinated, systematic, efficient and economic manner. Moreover, the
property which is subject to the Agreement lies within the California Coastal
Zone, and is subject to the overriding policies of the State of California,
as expressed through the California Coastal Act. The Development Plan meets
the various objectives of the California Coastal Act including, for example,
preservation of significant coastal resources, creation of visitor serving
facilities, and provision of new public access opportunities, in a manner
that has been found to be most protective, overall, of the public values
expressed through the policies of the California Coastal Act. The Agreement,
in turn, will provide the necessary assurances and predictability to achieve
• these benefits in the coordinated manner contemplated with the Development
Plan.
In exercising its legislative discretion to enter into the Development
Agreement and commit the County to the completion of the project, the County
has reviewed and considered all of the potential environmental impacts and
mitigation measures of the Development Plan including, but not limited to,
the potential adverse environmental impacts related to future grading and
landform modification, and the future infrastructure and utility needs of the
project. These needs are exemplified by the potential demands the project
will make on local and regional street, highways, water capacity and water
lines, sewer capacity and sewer lines, storm drainage system and related
energy conservation, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. The County has
scrutinized with particular care adverse impacts associated with vehicular
traffic conditions existing and projected to occur within the County, and the
traffic mitigations and beneficial impacts that will be achieved by the
project. The County has reviewed and considered, making a variety of assump-
tions, projected future regional and cumulative infrastructure and utility
demands that will compete with the project for available capacities and
cumulatively add to potential adverse impacts. In so doing, the County has
considered, among other things, the possibilities that 1) local, regional,
and State plans for provision of new infrastructure systems, or expansion of
existing infrastructure systems, may be delayed, modified or abandoned; and
2) infrastructure and utility improvements to be constructed as a part of the
project may exceed, in the short run or ultimately, the allocated capacities
• for such demands.
74
After assessing these and other potential adverse environmental impact
associated with the Development Plan, the County has imposed extensive exac-
tions as a part of the Development Plan. To the fullest extent feasible,
these measures include, among other things, requiring the landowner to commit
to early and extensive open space dedications and protection programs, and to
contribute to more than the project's fair share of the costs and dedications
for providing infrastructure and utility capacities prior to full completion
and occupancy of the project. In many instances, particularly with respect
to recreational uses, open space dedications and traffic improvements and
mitigations, requirements have been imposed on the landowner substantially in
excess of demands generated by the project itself. In so doing, the County
understands and acknowledges that the open space dedications and infrastru-
cture and utility improvements are significant and justify the assurance of
full completion of the residential and commercial elements of the project
which is provided to the landowner by the Development Agreement.
• The County also determines that full completion of the project will
itself constitute, or is needed to contribute to, mitigation of short-term
potential adverse environmental impacts, and that the public.benefits of the
project overrides any potential adverse environmental impacts of the project.
These determinations have been made based in part upon the paramount values,
policies and concerns of the California Coastal Act. Policies related to the
phased provision of roads, drainage facilities, open space dedication, and
public service facilities have been considered and, to the extent consistent
with achieving the Coastal Act policies advanced by the Development Plan,
incorporated into the project.
Given the public benefits of the project and the mitigation provided by
the project (see subsection "a" above), it has been determined that the
existing land use regulations shall apply to or govern the development of the
Irvine Coast.
Further, the County determines that three significant public policy
aspects of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement, as summarized below,
present overriding considerations in favor of finalizing the proposed devel-
opment agreement rather than potentially subjecting the Irvine Coast LCP to
future changes in County land use regulation:
1. The findings of approval for the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program
(set forth in Attachment E of the Irvine Coast Development Agree-
ment) have determined that the public benefits summarized in Sec-
tion 4 above not only carry out County policies, but also meet
75
•
significant visitor serving use, public access and habitat protec-
tion policies of the California Coastal Act in the manner reviewed
in those findings and as further summarized in Sections 2.31-2.33
of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement; and
2. At the time of its consideration and adoption, and pursuant to
finding adopted for the approval of both the 1981 Irvine Coast Land
Use Plan and the 1988 Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program, the use
of a development agreement for implementation of the LCP was an
integral aspect of the formulation of the 1988 Irvine Coast Local
Coastal Program. The LCP specifically conditions a major public
benefit, the recording of the Offer of Dedication for the Irvine
Coast Open Space Program, on the finalization of a development
agreement or equivalent mechanism, (i.e. without the development
agreement assurances, the landowner might defer commencement of the
project thereby delaying and/or preventing early public management
• and use of the open space areas). Likewise Pelican Hill Road
improvements could be delayed if LCP Transportation policies are
not assured on a long-term basis.
3. The significant public benefits proposed to be provided by the
development agreement have been committed to, subsequent to the
approval and certification of the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Pro-
gram, the approval for which was found by the County to be the
basis on which all significant environmental impacts were mitigated
by plan modifications and/or plan conditions, as set forth in the
findings contained in Exhibit H of the Irvine Coast Development
Agreement. Even though the public benefits provided by this Agree-
ment were agreed upon during the process of preparing the Local
Coastal Program submittal to the California Costal Commission, the
landowner has: 1) agreed to undertake certain additional public
benefits of a public services nature, including fire station,
sheriff and day care commitments all as set forth in Attachment C
of the proposed development agreement, 2) agreed to undertake the
construction and/or funding of major circulation improvements in an
amount approximating $20 million, as summarized in Table 1 of the
County Staff Report dated March 29, 1988, and 3) agreed to commit
to the dedication of said right-of-way when required for construc-
tion of the SJHTC even if no development has commenced.
In terms of long-term County benefit, these additional public facility
provisions more than offset the 'potential implications of limiting the ap-
plication of future regulatory enactments to the Irvine Coast LCP. The firm
•
76
•
assurance of dedication of SJHTC right-of-way will benefit all future County
residents by allowing the County to proceed more effectively in securing
funding for the SJHTC, a benefit that cannot be quantified in terms of right-
of-way value alone.
Finally, monetary values cannot be placed on the anticipated public
enjoyment of the Irvine Coast Wilderness Regional Park (2,666 acres); the
early dedication of SJHTC right-of-way (5.3 miles; 141.4 acres); and addi-
tional habitat area protection within three major canyon areas previously
targeted for development under the 1982 LUP. It is important that these
normative, unquantifiable benefits, as well as the operative, measurable
benefits, be considered in the decision making process. The ultimate over-
riding consideration may be the assemblage of over 6,600 acres of public park
lands (including Crystal Cove State Park) within a 1-2 hour drive of seven
million people in southern California.
•
• 77
•
E
ATTACHMENT- G
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 88-46 for Master CDP 88-11 P
RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
RE' ^iaster Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
(Irvine Coast Planned Community)
RES. NO. 88-46
DATE OF ADOPTION:
May 4, 1988
On the motion of Commissioner duly seconded
and carried, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the entire Irvine Coast Planned Community is within the
Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act of 1976 and is
coterminous with the Irvine Coast Planning Unit of the Local Coastal
Program of the County of Orange; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Coastal Act, the County
of Orange has prepared a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Irvine Coast;
and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted the Irvine
Coast LCP/Land Use Plan by Resolution No. 87-1606 and the Irvine Coast
LCP/Implementing Actions Program by Ordinance No. 3674 on December 2,
• 1987; and the California Coastal Commission certified the Irvine Coast Local
Coastal Program on January 14, 1988; and
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company, the major landowner in the LCP area,
has submitted "The Irvine Coast Master Coastal Development Permit" (File
No. 88-11P); and
WHEREAS, the CD "Coastal Development" District Regulations,, Sec. 7-9-
118, requires that a coastal development permit may be approved only after
the approving authority has made the findings in Orange County Zoning
Code Section 7-9-150 and Section 7-9-118.6 (e)
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65000 et.
seq. the County of Orange has an adopted General Plan which meets all of
the requirements of state law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30000 et. seq.
("Coastal Act of 1976"), the County of Orange has a certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP) in the 1988 Irvine Coast LCP for The Irvine Coast Planned
Community wherein the project is located; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with said laws, a legally noticed public
hearing was held by the Orange County Planning Commission on May 4,
1988 to consider Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P proposed by
The Irvine Company; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
. Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Sections 15000 et. seq.) EIR
F 0250-151
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
Page 2
485 has been prepared to address potential adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission has
considered proposed Final EIR 485 and finds that it adequately addresses all
potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project and meets
all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in
Resolution No. 88-45 adopted by this Commission on May 4, 1988.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
makes the following findings with respect to Master Coastal Development
Permit 88-IIP:
a. General Plan. The use or project proposed is consistent with the
General Plan.
b. Zoning Code. The use, activity or improvement proposed by the
application is consistent with the provisions of the Orange
County Zoning Code.
C. CEOA. The approval of the permit application is in compliance
• with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
d. Comnatibility. The location, size, design and operating
characteristics of the proposed use will not create significant
noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be
objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other permitted
uses in the vicinity.
C. General Welfare. The application will not result in conditions or
circumstances contrary to the public health and safety and the
general welfare.
f. Development Fees for Provision of Public Facilities. The
requirements of Orange County Code Section 7-9-711 have been
met.
g, Local Coastal Program. The project proposed by the application
conforms with the certified Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Planning Commission hereby
approves Master Coastal Development Permit 11-88P subject to the following
conditions:
General Requirements:
1. Approval of this Master Coastal Development Permit application
• constitutes approval of proposed project to extent of its
compliance with applicable Orange County and Irvine Coast
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
Page 3
Planned Community zoning regulations, but does not include
action or finding regarding compliance or approval of project
with other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
2. Approval of this application is valid for a period of twenty-four
(24) months from date of final determination. If use approved by
this action is not established within such time, area plan shall be
terminated and thereafter shall be null and void.
3. This application is approved as a concept plan to establish uses
and grading concept. The approved master coastal development
permit shall not be construed as to define the specific design to
be established at a subsequent stage. If changes to the approved
master coastal development permit are proposed, a changed plan
shall be submitted to Director of Planning, EMA for approval. If
the Director of Planning, EMA determines that the proposed
change complies with provisions, spirit and intent of approval
action, and the action would have been the same for the changed
plan as for approved plan, he may approve changed plan without
requiring a new public hearing.
• 4. Applicant agrees as condition of issuance of this permit to defend
at his sole expense action brought against County of Orange
because of issuance of the Master Coastal Development Permit or,
in the alternative, relinquishment of such permit. Applicant will
reimburse County for court costs and attorney's fees which County
may be required by court to pay as result of such action. County
at its sole discretion may participate in defense of such action,
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations
under this condition (Government Code Section 65907 requires
action to attach, review, set aside, void or annul permit must be
brought within 180 days of approval).
5. Failure to abide by and comply faithfully with any and all
conditions attached to granting of Master Coastal Development
Permit 88-IIP shall constitute grounds for revocation of said
permit.
Transportation Improvements:
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or recordation of the
first tract map for the applicable planning area, whichever comes
first, precise plans for construction of applicable roadway shall be
submitted to Director, EMA for review and approval. Said plans
shall incorporate appropriate road design features.
Transportation Corridor:
• 7. Prior to recordation of any map which includes Lot 30 of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 13337, the approximate limits of San Joaquin
Master Coastal Development Permit 88-IIP
Page 4
Hills Transportation Corridor required right-of-way within said Lot
30 shall be defined and shown on said final map.
Annual Monitoring Report:
8. An Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) shall be prepared and
submitted upon request each year to the County Administrative
Office (CAO) Monitoring/Forecast Services Division and the
Environmental Management Agency/Advance Planning Division.
The submittal of an AMR for the Planned Community is required
for conformance with the Growth Management Program of the
Land Use Element of the Orange County General Plan and the
County's Development Monitoring Program (DMP). The Board of
Supervisors, in the annual adoption of the Development Monitoring
Program, may identify a significant imbalance between proposed
development and planned infrastructure or in the proportionate
development of residential, commercial and employment land uses.
The Board of Supervisors may then defer Subdivision approval
within the project until approaches capable of resolving imbalances
are proposed to and approved by the Board or the Board may
require actions of subdividers in accordance with the provisions
of an applicable Development Agreement. The Annual Monitoring
Report will be the project proponent's opportunity to demonstrate
mitigation measures and implementation strategies which will
ensure adequate infrastructure for development of the property.
Fiscal Impact Report:
9. In the event of application for annexation or incorporation of all
or part of the project, the County may require that a revised
Fiscal Impact Report be prepared by the petitioners to assess the
cost -revenue impact of such annexation or incorporation on the
County and the special districts serving the property to be
annexed or incorporated.
Fire Protection:
10. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the project proponent
shall participate, in a manner identified by the Manager of Fire
Services of the Orange County Fire Department, and approved by
the Board of Supervisors, on a pro-rata basis in funding capital
improvements necessary to establish a fire station in the project
area. Such improvements shall include land acquisition, station
construction, and apparatus purchase. Specific compliance with
the condition may be refined or implemented through a
development agreement.
Sheriff:
11. Prior to the recordation of any final map the project proponent
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
Page 5
shall participate, in a manner identified by the Sheriff -Coroner,
and approved by the Board of Supervisors, on a pro-rata basis in
funding capital improvements necessary to establish permanent
sheriff substation facilities, if needed, to serve Irvine Coast and
other area development. Such improvements shall include land
acquisition, construction and equipment. Compliance with the
condition may be refined or implemented through a development
agreement.
Water/Wastewater:
12. Prior to the recordation of the first final development tract map,
the landowner shall provide proof of approval by the applicable
water/wastewater district to the Director, EMA and shall obtain
approval by the Subdivision Committee of a master plan of water
and wastewater works. The master plan shall include all onsite
and offsite facilities necessary to serve the short and long term
needs of the project and a general financing program for those
facilities which demonstrates sufficient entitlements and
wastewater collection and treatment capacity to serve the project.
Grading:
13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit
to and have approved by Manager, EMA/Development Services
Division soils engineering and geologic reports (if appropriate due
to slope conditions). Said studies shall primarily involve
assessment of potential soil -related constraints, and hazards such
as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction or related secondary
seismic impacts where determined appropriate by Manager,
EMA/Development Services Division. Said report shall include
evaluation of potentially expansive soils and recommend
construction procedures and/or design criteria to minimize effect
of these soils on proposed development. All reports shall
recommend appropriate mitigation measures and shall be completed
in the manner specified in the Orange County Grading Manual and
State/County Subdivision Ordinance.
14. Prior to the recordation of any final map or issuance of a
grading permit, whichever occurs first, for construction projects
located immediately adjacent to or including portions of Buck
Gully and Los Trancos Canyon open space corridors, the project
proponent shall provide evidence acceptable to the Manager,
Development Services, in consultation with the Director, Harbors,
Beaches and Parks, that graded areas adjacent to or within open
space will be compatible with natural land characteristics of the
open space areas. Treatment to achieve the desired effect shall
include:
• a. Smooth and gradual transition between graded slopes and
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-IIP
Page 6
existing grades within the open areas using variable slopes
ratios (2:1 to 4:1).
b. Obscuring slope drainage structures with a variety of plant
materials.
15. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for grading other than
that shown for the construction of the roadways, future reservoir
sites, and within Lots 26, 27 and 46 of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 13337, approval of a coastal development permit, site
development permit and/or subdivision map will be required.
16. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Lots 26 and 27 of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13337, the owner of Lots 26 and 27
must provide to OCEMA a notarized letter attesting to the fact
that they are legal owner of the adjacent property where grading
is to occur.
Noise:
17. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent
. shall produce evidence acceptable to the Manager, Development
Services, that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile,
operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall' be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified
Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as
far as practicable from dwellings.
Archaeology:
18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a County certified
archaeologist will be retained by the applicant to perform a
subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as
appropriate and as required by LCP policies I-3-G-1 and I-3-G-2.
The test level report evaluating the site will include discussion of
significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources),
final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated
finds will be offered to County of Orange, or designee, on a first
refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance
is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in
Orange County indicates desire to study and/or display them at
• this time. In this case, items will be donated to County, or
designee. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and based on
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-111'
Page 7
the report recommendations and County policy, final mitigation
will be carried out based upon a determination as to the site's
disposition by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks Program
Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are not
limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation
necessary.
19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall
provide written evidence subject to approval by the Chief,
EMA/Regulation/Grading Section that a County -certified
archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pre -
grading conference, shall establish, in cooperation with the
project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and
evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or
unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the
archaeologist shall report such findings to the project developer
and to the Director, Harbors, Beaches and Parks. If the
archaeological resources are found to be significant, the
archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in
cooperation with the project developer, for exploration and/or
• salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may
retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will
be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of
special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates
desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which case
items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions, as
well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be
subject to the approval of the Director, Harbors, Beaches and
Parks.
Paleontology:
20. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant
will provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/
Grading Section that a County certified Paleontologist has been
retained to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as
necessary in accordance with LCP policies I-3-H-1 and I-3-H-3.
The paleontologist will be present at the pre -grading conference,
will establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance,
and will establish, in cooperation with the project developer,
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils.
If major paleontological resources are discovered which require
long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist
will report such finds to the project developer and to the
• Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks Program Planning Division
in compliance with I-3-H-3. The paleontologist will determine
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-I1P
Page 8
appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer,
which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds
will be offered to County of Orange, or designee, on a first
refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance
is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or if a museum in
Orange County indicates desire to study and/or display them at
this time. In this case items will be donated to County, or
designee. These actions as well as final mitigation and disposition
of the resources will be subject to approval by the Manager,
Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division, which will
include the period of inspection, an analysis of the fossils found,
and present repository of the fossils.
.Resource Enhancement:
21. All slopes created in conjunction with construction of roadways
shall be landscaped, equipped for irrigation, and improved in
accordance with an approved plan as stated below:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to recordation of any final
• tract/parcel map or prior to issuance of any grading
permits, whichever comes first, an agreement shall be
entered into and financial security posted guaranteeing the
resource enhancement improvements and the maintenance
thereof. Said agreement and security shall be based on a
preliminary resource enhancement plan showing major plant
material and other resource enhancement features, with a
cost estimate for said improvements. The preliminary plan
and cost estimate shall be reviewed and approved by the
Manager, Subdivision Division in consultation with the
Manager, Advance Planning Division and the Manager,
Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. Saic
plan shall take into account the EMA Standard Plans for
landscaped areas, adopted plant palette guides and applicable
Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program and Pacific Coast
Highway Scenic Plan requirements.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to issuance of any building permit(s), a
detailed resource enhancement plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Manager, Subdivision Division, in
consultation with the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and
Parks/Program Planning Division. Detailed plans shall show
the detailed irrigation and landscaping design.
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy and the release of the
financial security guaranteeing the resource enhancement
• improvements, said improvements shall be installed and shall
be certified by a licensed landscape architect as having been
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
Page 9
installed in accordance with the approved detailed plans.
Said certification shall be furnished in writing to the
Manager, Construction Division.
Drainage
22. Prior to the recordation of the first map (either for conveyance
or development) prior to the issuance of any grading permit
(whichever occurs first), the developer shall prepare a Refined
Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan, based on the
Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan for Irvine Coast
Planning Area, that includes details of the locations and sizes of
retention basins, and other drainage devices, in a manner meeting
the approval of the Manager, Flood Program Division.
23. Prior to the recordation of the applicable final map (for
conveyance or development) or prior to the issuance of a grading
permit (whichever occurs first) the developer shall design and
construct all necessary master infrastructure improvements
identified in the Refined Master Drainage and Runoff Management
Plan and provide necessary dedications, all in a manner meeting
• the approval of the Manager, Subdivision if work is accomplished
with developer funds or Manager, Design Division, if work is
accomplished as a County Assessment District.
24. Prior to or concurrent with recordation of the first final map for
any lot within Planning Areas IA, 1B or 2A, the land owner shall
make an irrevocable offer of dedication in fee of the public park
lots "B" and "F" of Tract 13337 to the County of Orange or its
designee for park purposes in a form approved by the Manager,
Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division suitable for
recording. Said offer shall be free and clear of money and all
other encumbrances, liens, leases, fees, easements (recorded and
unrecorded), assessments and unpaid taxes except those meeting
the approval of the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program
Planning Division. Said offer shall be in a form that can be
accepted for transfer of fee title at any time by the County.
Creditable acreage for purposes of satisfying Local Park Code
requirements shall comply with requirements of the Irvine Coast
Local Park Implementation Plan, General Plan and any applicable
EMA policies and procedures.
25. Prior to or concurrent with recordation of the first final map for
any lot within Planning Areas 1C, 2B, 2C, 5, 4A or 3A, the
landowner shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication in fee of
the public park lot "D" of Tract 13337 to the County of Orange or
its designee for park purposes in a form approved by the Manager,
• Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division suitable for
recording. Said offer shall be free and clear of money and all
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-IIP
Page 10
other encumbrances, liens, leases, fees, easements (recorded and
unrecorded), assessments and unpaid taxes except those meeting
the approval of the Manager, Harbor, Beaches and Parks/Program
Planning Division. Said offer shall be in a form that can be
accepted for transfer of fee title at any time by the County.
Creditable acreage for purposes of satisfying Local Park Code
requirements shall comply with requirements of the Irvine Coast
Local Park Implementation Plan, General Plan and any applicable
EMA policies and procedures.
Parks:
26. Prior to recordation of subject map, the subdivider shall make an
irrevocable continuing offer of dedication to the County of
Orange or its designee over 1988 LCP Planning Areas 18, 19, 21A,
21B, 21C, 21D for a total of 2,666 acres for regional park
purposes in a form approved by the Manager, EMA-Harbors,
Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division suitable for
recording fee title. Said offer shall be free and clear of money
and all other encumbrances, liens, leases, fees, assessments and
unpaid taxes. Easements (recorded or unrecorded) shall be in a
• form approved by the Manager, EMA-Harbors, Beach and
Parks/Program Planning Division. Said offer shall be in a form
that can be accepted for transfer of fee title at any time by the
County of its designee.
27. Prior to recordation of the first final development tract map
for residential uses, project proponent shall submit a Local Park
Implementation Plan which shall determine compliance with the
Local Park Code in a manner meeting the approval of
Subdivision Committee and EMA-Harbors, Beaches and
Parks/Program Planning Division.
28. Prior to the recordation of a final development tract map
within Planning Areas 10A and 10B, the subdivider shall
dedicate a scenic easement to the County of Orange or its
designee over the golf course for scenic preservation purposes
in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Parks and
Recreation/Program Planning Division. The subdivider shall
grant the underlying fee title to a homeowner's association.
Maintenance, upkeep and liability for said easement area shall
be the responsibility of the subdivider or his assigns and
successors (i.e., Homeowners' Association) or current underlying
owner(s) of said easement area and shall not be included in
said dedication offer. The subdivider shall not grant any
easement over any property subject to the scenic easement
unless such easement(s) are first reviewed and approved by the
• Manager, Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division.
Limitations and restrictions for said easement shall be recorded
• Master Coastal Development Permit 88-11P
Page 11
by separate document in a manner meeting the approval of the
Manager, Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division.
29. Prior to the recordation of a final development tract map for
Lots adjoining Pacific Coast Highway, the subdivider shall
dedicate a scenic easement to the County of Orange or its
designee over the portion lot(s) within the scenic highway
district for scenic preservation purposes in a manner meeting
the approval of the Manager, Parks and Recreation/Program
Planning Division. The subdivider shall grant the underlying fee
title to a homeowner's association. Maintenance, upkeep and
liability for said easement area shall be the responsibility of the
subdivider or his assigns and successors (i.e., Homeowners'
Association) or current underlying owner(s) of said
easement area and shall not be included in said dedication
offer. The subdivider shall not grant any easement over any
property subject to the scenic easement unless such
casement(s) are first reviewed and approved by the Manager,
Parks and recreation/Program Planning Division. Limitations and
restrictions for said easement shall be recorded by
separate document in a manner meeting the approval of the
• Manager, Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division.
30. Prior to recordation of any final tract map(s) which establish
legal building sites for more than a cumulative total of 500
residential lots or units within the Irvine Coast Planned
Community, an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Manager, Advance Planning
Division.
31. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Grading Operation
and Construction Plan shall be submitted to Manager,
Subdivision Division which demonstrates consistency with the
following Irvine Coast LCP Policy:
To the maximum extent feasible, heavy construction traffic
(i.e., dirt moving equipment, dump trucks, and cement trucks)
will access the Irvine Coastal properties of Pelican Hill from
the Coyote Canyon Landfill and/or other inland area.
Construction traffic for Cameo Del Mar, Wishbone, and Pacific
Coast Highway widening requiring access from Pacific Coast
Highway will be restricted on Pacific Coast Highway to periods
of non -peak traffic. The applicant shall provide on -site
parking for construction vehicles working adjacent to the
Pacific Coast Highway as soon as possible to minimize impacts
on PCH.
•
Master Coastal Development Permit 88-IIP
Page 12
Environmental Impact Mitigation:
32. All Mitigation measures of certified Final EIR 485 are incorporated
as conditions of Master CDP 88-11P approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions adopted herein are
reasonably related to the use of the property and necessary for appropriate
development and operation of the uses permitted by the Irvine Coast Local
Coastal Program.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
• I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 88-46 was
adopted on May 4, 1988, by the Orange County Planning Commission.
Robert G. Fisher, Director of Planning
Environmental Management Agency
•
ATTACHMENT - E
0
Lsa
i
FINAL/WITH ERRATA
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ON DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1485
FOR
THE IRVINE COAST
SCH #88012010
LEAD AGENCY: COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
COASTAL AND•COMMUNITY PLANNING
SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048
CONTACT PERSON: PATRICIA SHOEMAKER
TELEPHONE: (714) 834-6959
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR USE BY
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
May 2, 1988
9
•
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
0
PAGE
INTRODUCTION....................................................... 1-1
INDEX TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (Received on or before April 27, 1988)
Department of the Army (DOA) ................................. 2-1
Jim Miller (JM) .... ..... .. ............................. 3-1
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger (FIC) ............................. 4-1
City of Irvine (CI) .. .......... ..................... 5-1
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) ..................... 6-1
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) ........................... 7-1
Department of Water Resources ....... 8-1
State of California, Department of Conservation .............. 9-1
INDEX TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (Received after April 27, 1988)
Lsa
The purpose of this section of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
485 is to respond to all comments of environmental significance received by
the County of Orange relative to Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 485
(State Clearinghouse Number 88012010) prepared for The Irvine Coast in accor-
dance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
INDEX
Copies of all DEIR comments received as of April 27, 1988, are contained
in this report. This report was distributed as a Draft on April 29, 1988.
It has since been revised. Revisions are indicated by blue colored pages.
In addition, comments received after April 27, 1988, are also addressed in
this report. This Response to Comments includes letters received after the
end of the review period and letters in response to the public hearing
notice. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a
• list of the persons, organizations and public agencies making such comments
is set forth in the Table of Contents of this document.
INCORPORATION INTO FINAL EIR
The comments and the responses to these comments included in this doc-
ument become part of the environmental documentation for the proposed pro-
ject. The comments and responses help to clarify the DEIR and provide the
public and decision makers with complete documentation of the public environ-
mental effects of the project. The comments, representing concerns of in-
dividuals or agencies, have been responded to in a manner which addresses
each concern within the scope of the project, consistent with CEQA Guide-
lines. The comments and the responses are herewith incorporated with the
DEIR to form the Final EIR.
1-1
INDEX TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
(RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE APRIL 27, 1988)
L
•
Lsa
1-2
I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. SOX.2711
• �, LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 999S3Q325
REPLY 10
/ ATTENTION OF February 10, 1988
Office of the Chief
Environmental Resources Branch
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702.404E
Ladies and Gentlemen: "
.We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Irvine Coast Master Coastal Development Permit and
Tentative Tract Map, dated January 14, 1988. The notice requests information
about our responsibilities involving the proposed project.
Our responsibilities include investigation, design, operation and
maintenance of water resource projects, including preparation of environmental
• guidelines in the fields of flood control, navigation and shore protection.
We.are responsible. -also for administration of laws and regulations
against pollution of the waters of the United States. We believe the
forthcoming document should address the above -listed responsibilities.
Work in waters of the United States might require a permit under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of 'the Rivera and Harbors Act. We
cannot determine from the submitted information the extent of the Corps'
jurisdiction over this project. Please give our Regulatory Branch
documentation that clearly describes the area and extent of any proposed work
in watercourses and adjacent wetlands to help us make that determination.
DOA-1
If the proposed project involves any Federal assistance through funding
or permits, compliance with Section 106 of. the National Historic Preservation) DOA-2
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f) and implementing regulations, 36 CFR
800, will be required.
Please feel free to contact this office for anv data that can help you
prepare the projected document. The contact person for this project is
Jim Myrtetus, at telephone (213) 894-5635.
FEa tig �9�
EMA
2-1
• - 2-
We will appreciate an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
DEIR when it is issued.
Sincerely,
- A M.�-v -
Robert S. Joe
Chief, planning Division
•
2-2
Wa
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
DOA-1 At the time of the preparation of the DEIR, it was not anticipated
that the proposed development would impact stream courses; drainage
courses directly impacted by construction are Category D drainages.
These drainages are described in the biological resources report as
having no riparian habitats or year-round surface water. Category
A and B drainages, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps,
are to be preserved in their existing state, with exceptions as
outlined in the Local Coastal Program, Part I, Chapter 3, Section D
(DEIR 485, Appendix H). These exceptions include infrastructure
and road development. As indicated in Mitigation Measure 6-2,
these exceptions may come under Corps jurisdiction. If so, appro-
priate notification will be submitted to the Corps.
DOA-2 * Comment acknowledged.
0
•
2-3
SCREEN CHECK
TO: JvAW /N7LR P 7 SHOFMAY
• BY:A/MET7x'C
FROM: / /
TENTATIVE TRACT NO -
SITE PLAN OTHER —
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
COMMENTS
1. 'thbeclearly�Shown. Area a All a3oP,nd rSreel Shallatiatns
be Shown by typo.
i. Typical building pees prnpopd tar the IaCAtLan of atruatur•s
shall be graphically Indicated with approximate dieendon.
and setbacks.
3. Ptopoesd finished grade elevations shall be ahwnv
—' A. Lloet intervals or opposite lot cornet&)dgag at&and
hundred 1100)
_ a. on each P[apoud building Pad-
volexport at
rt
,. matecl&1 required eandtthe location off
fthe disposaloOr bo[cwh
Site& shall accompany the toestivo "P.
A statement of the malntemanas responsibility for mach slaps
,,,, shall be made.
dohs and 006109Y Report
the
9u1o91oloonditlostOn theat &ALtaaindetheitlaffect onlthe
emd
ctatlbllltY of the Plan of dovelopatnt, including the grading
• This npert. Cr ,,ports, , ,he tentative tract sap.
, shallbepreparedandsrthe
aup,rvW,n of a Solis @nglnaor and an em91he•r1ri9 geolograt.
7. Usight and Inclination of San-a+dt slope* gloved
coquirsaents. Not of
A. vertical height
1teeiound car lw onto
thsal flvs1)feet horizontalIII fact vertluple.,
(1.) Type A Slope - vans.
I3.) Type 1 slops - thlcty-91vS (351 (got.
(3.) Type C dope - twontY (10) goat.
S, Nan -pads Slope& Abell not ne Constructed one an top of
another or tosbined in such a maMSC So that they eScaod
the "xlx= heights specified.
C. Nan-aads Slopes %hall be no Stupee than two R) toot
horizontal to 11) two voctical.
1. = 1111a1da rat Design Criteria
A. Length And contcut of man-aeds slopes.
Man -„do Slopes Shall be 41es194,d to testable natural
terrain where
pit" xgttacaa and &cutsnf long, Iles.
M9 t
incline
1. rats Shall be designed So that where Type C Slopes are
ptopo.d between abutting lots, the common Property 1Lma
,bell be at the top of tht Slope.
S, ^ 11
ralne9, and troaln Control sudatd&
What*Any lot is 49219nad In Much S Kamer that it will not
drain directly to & &tcast or coaame drainage facility with s
xLnLaus ant percent III) grade, it shall be designed In a
same, that will oonfooa to the following Criteria.
A. Late ,hall be designed 1n Such , p ar that man -Sad,
&lopes are hot @abject to shot flw, or concentrated
drainage runoff from either the toe or an adjacent lot.
r 1. All drainage draln,9e troafwatergfalling on each slope Abell be
down �_Ssdt plop's except thet
Contained vltnln an apptopr tab duLCWs dwlra.
mother
C. J611, drainage lot shall be within 9M PProv%d drainage device located
within a PcoporlY exacated e&aaa.At. what& AW09rlAb.
�0. = A. A ion &hallo
.d1nq octo &hallu recrel n
placed th- Cents
GItrolls abell ,conlorx to l the
ch cedA
requlreasnu of the oxanga County Grading and Excavation
Code.'
1. Major Cut/1111 dope, and drainage devices "Lat,d to
t& C,,&tln trails Alull be Shown.
31Mebn1o0L-1/
6112
7i1£,Nlt/Q4T/G#V MFASURfS fOR L,OA/Dfd,Y,i1�7�GR,4PIlY
SECT/AV 3./, SlAliAWOWXNI94 fILa(6494FI1 /RS6
SHW40 ff eXROW Td A ,W/NIAWAI 8B? A16U lE 1
i e NpNOP/OAI. rNE 57A7Zif1FFNii n$MJXr7Z7 Jrgdf..fT
op A X0.V.4L Of 6WPxa1av vU1ff a, CWv'SXaf1a
9197 RStAT/YS 00P4070N. ° SbWW AF OR O, SSE
rSE.VXSN[�' err � I -3. y1J/S S71N�'M.�V1'
Ew
t4SpOp,8.rAVP).W TO Jp NlOt7y+pr',Nl71GA7lUV
onx
776 9901416 =770N llAf NO OnW CM14AIrs 70 000
ON TNC M9i8RI/IUD tORA£4APNf' AV 0"WEAW'0016
SE'CT/oa IT YAfr eF 4R .T 4r NIS 774W.
AWW
3-1
Lsa
RESPONSE TO C"ENTS
JIN MILLER
JM-1 Comment acknowledged and incorporated into the Landform and Topo-
graphy Mitigation Measure, 2-13.
•
0
SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGE&
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
•
E. CLEMENT SHUTE. JR.
396 HAYES STREET
TERRELL J. WATT. AICP
FLWNER
MARK 1. WEINBERGER
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102
uRwl
MARC B. MIHALY. P. C.
(415) 552-7272
WINIFRED A. BERMAN
ALLETTA D A. BELIN
April 25, 198
ELLEN J. GAER
BB9WIRONMEN
FRFP-AN M. LAYTON
FELLOWS
RACHEL B. HOOFER
Ronald Tippets
Chief of Coastal Planning Section
c/o Patricia Shoemaker
Coastal and Community Planning
Environmental Management Agency
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Re: Comments on the Irvine Coast Master Coastal
Development Permit (MCDP, Permit CD 88-11P),
the MCDP Appendix, Vesting "A" Tentative
Tract Map 13337 (SCH 88012010) and DEIR 485
Dear Mr. Tippets:
The following comments on the above -captioned
documents are submitted on behalf of the Friends of the
Irvine Coast. Our comments are set forth in two major
• categories: general comments related to all of the
above -titled documents and specific comments on the draft
environmental impact report (DEIR) 485.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Proposed Subdivision Triggers the Offers of
Dedication of Planning Areas 11A (Buck Gully) and 12 A
(Los Trancos Canyon).
The Irvine Coast LCP sets forth the conditions
under which special use open space areas are to be
dedicated, as follows:
Prior to or concurrent with the
recordation of the first final
development map, other than a large -lot
subdivision in PA/lA, PA 1B or PA 2A,
the landowner shall record an Offer of
Dedication for PA 11A.
(at I-3.10), and
Prior to or concurrent with the
recordation of the first final
development map, other than a large -lot
APR 2,; Ic
4-1
Ronald Tippets
April 25, 1988
Page 2
subdivision in PA 1C,
PA 5, PA 4A, or PA 3A,
shall record an Offer
PA 12A.
(at I-3.10).
follows:
PA 2B, PA 2C,
the landowner
of Dedication for
A "large -lot subdivision" is defined in the LCP as
Large -lot Subdivision: A Subdivision or
parcel map, prepared for financing or
conveyance purposes, where no parcel is
smaller than 20 acres, and which
includes a declaration that the lots
created are not building sites. This
may include subdivisions or parcel maps
for commercial or visitor -serving use
areas.
(Emphasis added; at page II-12.7).
The proposed subdivision contains numerous lots in
Planning Areas 1A, 1B, 1C, 2B and 2C smaller than 20 acres
in size. Therefore, the landowner should choose between the
following two options: (1) consistent with LCP provisions,
the Master Coastal Development Permit (MCDP) and conditions
for approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13337 should
provide that Offers of Dedication will be recorded for Buck
Gully and Los Trancos Canyon concurrent with recordation of
the final map, or (2) the Tentative Tract Map should be
revised such that parcel sizes in the specified planning
areas are equal to or greater than 20 acres, except those
parcels designated exclusively for public utilities (e.g.
reservoirs).
The MCDP Encompasses Only a Portion of the Development
Area of the Property.
FIC-1
As permitted under the LCP, the proposed MCDP and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map encompass only a portion of the
development area of the Irvine Coast property. For example, FIC-2
Residential Planning Areas 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A and 7B are not
included in this permit and map and presumably will be
4-2
• Ronald Tippets
April 25, 1988
Page 3
covered by another MCDP before development may proceed in
these areas.
The residential units allowed in the LCP
Statistical Table for the Planning Areas covered by the MCDP
and map ranges between an estimate of 2,541 units (Est. a)
and a high of 3,035 (Max. b). The residential areas not
included in the MCDP include an estimated 59 dwelling units.
The Friends wish to ensure that as the dwelling
units in this MCDP are constructed, the overall restriction
of 2,600 units for the entire property is recognized and
implemented. The LCP addresses this concern in part by the
following provision:
Any revision to increase the number of
estimated ("Est. (a)") dwelling units or
• accommodations in any Planning Area
shall be offset by a corresponding
decrease in other Planning Area(s),
provided that the total number of
dwelling units and accommodations shown
on the PC Development Map and
Statistical Table for the entire Planned
Community does not exceed 21600 dwelling
units and 2,150 accommodations,
respectively; and the maximum ("Max.
(b)") dwelling units or accommodations
shown on the Statistical Table for each
Planning Area is not exceeded.
(at II-11.5).
It is our understanding that this provision will
require amendment of the Statistical Table whenever the
County proposes to approve more than the estimated number of
dwelling units for any planning area; the amendment must
include a corresponding decrease in the estimated number of
units for one or more planning areas. This may include
necessary reduction for the number of permissible dwelling
units as shown in the Statistical Table for Planning Areas
not included in the MCDP. Please confirm that our
understanding is correct.
•
FIC-2
(CONT'D)
4-3
Ronald Tippets
April 25, 1988
Page 4
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DEIR 485
1. Clarification of Intention to Complete Further
Environmental Review (pages 9, 13).
It is unclear from the DEIR to what extent
additional EIR's will be completed for project CDP's, site
plans and other more detailed implementing programs. The FIC-3
DEIR text refers to the possibility of further "supplemental
environmental documentation" for individual projects or
grouped planning areas.
we believe that site plans and CDP's for
substantial residential, resort, commercial and golf course
projects are likely to -require supplemental EIR's in order
to identify, describe and mitigate site specific impacts
including, but not limited to, impacts on biological,
hydrological, offshore marine and other sensitive resources.
The Friends recognize that, through use of the tiering
process authorized pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, focussed EIR's may be appropriate in many cases
as implementation of the project proceeds.
Please clarify the intent of these sections
relating to future environmental review.
2. Protection of On -Site Significant Biological
Resources.
The Friends recognize that the LCP allows offsets
th ou h the dedication program for impacts to the
r J
development areas. These impacts may include removal of
vegetation and habitat areas due to grading in specified
areas.
The DEIR should specify the extent to which
biological resources on the development sites will be
protected during implementation of the MCDP. For example,
similar mitigation measures to those related to biological
impacts listed in the Pelican Hill Road EIR should be
included as part of the MCDP. Specifically, mitigation
measures dealing with impacts upon vegetation, including
measures 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, should be reviewed for
FIC-4
4-4
• Ronald Tippets
April 25, 1988
Page 5
possible inclusion of similar measures into the MCDP. (See
Pelican Hill Road EIR, pages xv - xvii.)
3. The Growth-Inducj.ng Impacts Associated with
Service Extensions Should Be Addressed.
In the discussions of public services and
growth -inducing impacts of the proposed project, it is
stated that "infrastructure extensions will provide access
to undeveloped areas (at 298). The DEIR should address the FIC-5
implications of extending services to these areas, including
a discussion of areas and acreage affected by service
extensions.
4. Clarification of the Relationship of the Proposed
Project to the Need for the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Should Be Provided
Prior EIR's for the Irvine Coast project have made
40 clear that project -related traffic will be more than ade-
quately served by Pelican Hill and Sand Canyon Roads in
combination with other contemplated improvements, without FIC-6
construction and operation of the San Joaquin Hills Trans-
portation Corridor. Please confirm that this conclusion is
consistent with the EIR for this project. (See EIR's for
Pelican Hill Road and Irvine Coast Development Agreement.)
The DEIR includes some discussion regarding
traffic impacts upon Pacific Coast Highway south of the
planning area, as well as on other roads within Laguna
Beach. The FEIR and findings for the Irvine Coast Develop-
ment Agreement also address these impacts. Additional
references to these discussions in the text of this DEIR
would be useful.
5. Clarification of Mitigation Measures for Urban
Runoff/Water Quality.
The Golf Course Monitoring Program contained in
the master drainage/runoff management plan establishes an
acceptable program for monitoring golf course runoff.
Please clarify what is intended by the further mitigation
measure in the DEIR which calls for "specific mitigation
measures relating to runoff and water quality from the golf
•
FIC-7
FIC-8
4-5
• Ronald Tippets
April 25, 1988
Page 6
course" to be provided with the golf course Coastal
Development Permit.
In addition, it should be recognized that both the
County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board retain
authority to impose corrective action, based upon the
results of the monitoring program. MCP at I-3.24) For
example, the Regional Board could include establishment of
discharge standards from the golf course area. While we are
aware of water quality management objectives suggested in
the runoff management plan (see, e.g., Section V, page V-5),
we do not concur that these objectives (reduction to the
"lowest practicable extent possible") will necessarily be
the standard imposed by Regional Board in establishing
standards or determining to take corrective action.
FIC-9
6. Cumulative Air Quality and Traffic Impacts
• Additional discussion is needed in the DEIR which
clarifies the methodology for cumulative air quality and FIC-10
traffic analyses, in order to specify how all committed and
foreseeable development in the study area is taken into
account. See DEIR, sections 4.71 4.9 and 7.0.
7. Section 8.0, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, is
Incomplete.
The section on unavoidable adverse impacts needs
to be completed in view of the biological impacts which have FIC-11
been identified in the DEIR.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
proposed implementing documents and DEIR. Please do not
•
4-6
• Ronald Tippets
April 25, 1988
Page 7
hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding the
contents of this letter.
TW:dk
001/tic
cc: Wayne Woodruff
Carol Hoffman
•
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHHALJY & WEINBERGER
TERREL)WATT
Urban Planner
EIMA
F
�,
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SHUTE. MIHALY & WEINBERGER
FIC-1 Option #1 outlined in the Friend's letter has been chosen and will
be implemented by means of appropriate permit conditions.
FIC-2 Yes, your understanding is correct. Gommeat-aeknow}edged:--Fhe-EIR
mid: igats4on -measure- *144--i-nc-RWe-vegett i en- M-t ige4 ton--mesures• -eom-
parab}e-te-these- -i-n -Me -Pelican-H411-EdR;- 4*c4tK-iitg the -gathering
of -seeds- a€- sens4 t4ve- poem- -sped-es- *or -appropriate
� }ocal:4ons:
FIC-3 For subsequent CDP's the criteria specified in CEQA, including the
provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, will be
applied to determine the appropriate CEQA documentation for the
particular entitlements requested. The Friends' counsel is most
likely familiar with CEQA requirements which focus on the type of
• impacts potentially caused by a particular project and the degree
to which such impacts were or were not adequately addressed in
prior CEQA reviews.
FIC-4 The referenced mitigation measures are a part of DEIR 485, and are
addressed under the following measures: PHR 31 is addressed in DEIR
mitigation measure 6-1, PHR 32 is addressed in DEIR mitigation
measure 6-10, and PHR 33 is addressed in DEIR mitigation measure 6-
11. PHR 35 is considered not applicable to this project, while 36
is deemed not necessary, because the open space dedication has
offset the need for this mitigation.
FIC-5 The potential growth inducing implications of the Pelican Hill Road
extension were examined in Pelican Hill Road FEIR 460. The exten-
sion of infrastructure and associated utilities involved in the
construction of San Joaquin Hills Road creates the potential for
extending services into an Orange County Planning Area called "OC
4." Each of the traffic studies prepared for the Irvine Coast
Development Agreement FEIR 486 and EIR 485 has included within the
long-term build out assumptions a level of development intensity
commensurate with the present Orange County land use designations
applicable to OC-4. Accordingly, with regard to traffic effects,
the potential environmental implications of cumulative traffic
impacts including OC-4 have been assessed (e.g. the ultimate widen-
ing requirements for San Joaquin Hills are addressed at p. of
the DEIR 485 and at page 44 of the Findings for EIR 485). In terms
•
M
Lsa
of direct physical impacts, it should be noted that the OC-4 area
has an existing General Plan designation establishing overall, land
use intensities, and the specific entitlements for development have
not yet been reviewed by Orange County. With regard to site speci-
fic impacts of any development area(s) served by the San Joaquin
Hills Road infrastructure extension, such potential impacts would
be reviewed in conjunction with CEQA review of specific entitle-
ment, requests and appropriate mitigation and/or alternatives would
be determined at that time. Likewise, a decision to widen San
Joaquin Hills Road would also be made at that time.
FIC-6 Comment acknowledged, and it is confirmed that traffic will be more
than adequately served by PHR and Sand Canyon Roads in combination
with other contemplated improvement, without the SJHTC.
FIC-7 Please refer to pp. 255-256 of EIR 485 and to pp. 7-11 of the FEIR
486 Irvine Coast Development Agreement. A conclusion at p. 255 of
• EIR 485 indicates that Irvine Coast traffic will use only 65% of
the ultimate Pelican Hill Road capacity. Similarly, the Findings
at pp. 28-33 of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement EIR examine
the net benefits of Irvine Coast development associated regional
traffic benefits, and concludes that these benefits outweigh any
potential impacts on PCH south of the project area in the event
that the SJHTC is delayed.
The text of the EIR will be modified to include references to FEIR
486 analyses and findings relating to impacts on traffic south of
the planning area.
FIC-8 Since the MCDP does not constitute a permit for actual development
of the golf course, the water quality monitoring requirements will
be finalized at the time of the issuance of the CDP for the golf
course itself. The monitoring program proposed in the MORN will
establish the guidelines for the specific program to be adopted,
however there could well• be further technical modifications
proposed for the monitoring program at the time of the golf course
CDP itself.
With regard to any future action by the RWQCB in response to a need
for corrective action, any statement at this time would be specula-
tive. The term "discharge standards" is normally associated with
major point discharges and would seem inappropriate in the context
of non -point runoff dispersed through several drainage channels
r1
U
4-9
r
(see Dr. Ford's report attached to the MDRMP). Prior communica-
tions with the staff of the RWQCB have indicated that the Board has
not previously established water -quality discharge standards for
golf courses. Rather;-4t-4s-a*re--likely -that-spee4ffie Thus, cor-
rective actions would -4xe -required proposed to address specific
problems associated with the golf course runoff must be reasonable
and effective. The pre -construction samples will be used to assess
potential impacts and to establish a baseline for review.
FIG-6 Regional -a4r-quality-eens4deraVons- ere- ievAiewed-at -per: -1.96-199-o€
the-DEIR-485-and-at-pp.-3Z-33-o€-t:he-Findings:
FIG-8 Although —proposed•-4nfrestructure- -extens4ens--as-soc-i-a-t-ed-with--the
PROJEGT-will-provide-access -to -undeveloped -areas-iat-will -not-Induce
growth : --Th4s-4s-beca+{se--t,4e-c4paL44eS -oof -e*t-ended-t•n€rastrueture
€aciliires- are -intended-to--only--serve-Vie--Irvine-Coast--Planned
Gommunity.--In-addittion; -undeveloped-lands-tso-the-sough-and-east;-o€
the - PROJECT- * 1-l--rema4n-iundeveloped-4n-open--space•-preserves:---A
further -d4seuss4en-of- i*frast4V0t'ire--exirens-i-on--immpact-s-i-s--provided
ion -Rublie-Services -and -Ut lii;ies-section-o€-the-Final-EIR-.
FIG-10 Gommeni:-acknowledged:
FIG-Il The -intent -e€-mitigation- measures- related-•t9--t-he•-go4--c-oltrse-is-te
provide-€or-€lexibility-in-the-€final-design-and-eonst:ruci;ion-o€-the
gol€-course:
FIC-9 Comment acknowledged, no response required.
FIC-10 The traffic study prepared for the Irvine Coast (Irvine Coastal
Area Traffic Analysis, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., January 8,
1988) utilized three traffic forecast models, including the New-
port/South Irvine Traffic Model (NSITM), Orange County Traffic
Analysis Model (OCTAM), and City of Irvine Transportation Analysis
Program (ITAP). The specific development agreement projects listed
in this comment are all outside of the Irvine Coast Study area,
however they are included in the County General Plan demographic
and dwelling unit forecasts for trip generation incorporated into
the project traffic analysis from the OCTAM model.
The OCTAM land use and socioeconomic data projections are consis-
tent for transportation and land use planning, as required by the
State Government Code. Land use and socioeconomic projections are
4-10
the principal data used in facility need analysis, route and pre-
cise alignment studies, and most other transportation studies.
The OCTAM land use and socioeconomic projections represent "build -
out" of adopted land use plans. For undeveloped or developing
areas of a particular city, land use projections are based on that
city's General Plan. In unincorporated areas that are within a
city sphere of influence (SOI), the build -out land use scenario is
based on the city's SOI plan or General Plan land use designation
for that area.
The Environmental Management Agency (EMA) revised the land use and
socioeconomic projections used in the OCTAM model, as necessary.
These revisions in build -out projections are based on modifications
in the County General Plan of the cities within the County, and
recently approved development agreements. In this manner, all
projects which were approved prior to the previous update procedure
. are incorporated into the build -out projections. Hence, the OCTAM
land use and socioeconomic data contain the most recent projections
for build -out of the County available at the time of the analysis.
Cumulative air quality impacts are determined by utilization of
traffic projections in the CALINE4 model developed by the Califor-
nia Air Resources Board (GARB). As discussed above, the traffic
projections address current build -out estimates for the County.
Thus the traffic data input included in the CALINE4 emissions
calculations incorporates the County's most recent growth projec-
tions.
FIC-11 As noted in the errata sheet to the DEIR 485, no unavoidable
adverse impacts are identified for biological impacts.
•
4-11
Comrrunity Deveiopmen' Department
City of Irvine, 17200 Jamboree Road, P O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92713 (714) 660-3600
April 22, 1988
Ms. Patricia Shoemaker
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
Coastal and Community Planning
12 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #485 FOR THE
IRVINE COAST
Dear Ms. Shoemaker:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
• Draft Environmental Impact Report #485 for the Irvine Coast.
The following are the City of Irvine's comments:
1. The land use section of the Cumulative Impact Analysis,
Page 323, first paragraph, should be revised to state that
the City of Irvine's General Plan will be changed from a
development to open space designation (per the
Conservation/Open Space Update) instead of from an open
space to development designation for this area as indicted
in the text.
CI-1
2. Page 158 of the EIR should mention that a portion of the
northwest corner of the project site is located within
Irvine's sphere of influence. Attached is the 1972 LAFCO
staff report stating that the boundary of Irvine's southern CI-2
sphere of influence is located at the "crest of the San
Joaquin Hills."
3. There should be mention within the EIR of development
impacts on Irvine's public facilities. The document should
.address the increae in demand for facilities that would be
incurred by the City of Irvine with development of the CI-3
Irvine Coast.
a• I C E I V E D
APR 2 G 1988
f'R01rcT °LAMMING
5-1
• Ms. Shoemaker
April 22, 1988
Page 2
4. Relating to phased matching improvements of circulation
improvements outside of the Irvine Coast LCP, the County is
committing to a reasonable effort to provide the assumed
MPAH. What happens if it is not provided by the County or CI-4
adjacent City and there are impacts? Who is responsible
for interim mitigations?
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on
the Draft Environmental Impact Report. If you have any
questions, please contact Macie Cleary, Assistant Planner, at
(714) 660-6110.
DENNIS WILBERG
Services Manager -Transportation Se ices
SEL/MC:bb
cc: Steve Letterly, Principal Planner -Environmental Services
Macie Cleary, Assistant Planner
Steve Haubert, Senior Planner
Eric Heesacker, Assistant Planner
Rob McCann, Transportation Services
bb3shoemaker
11
UM
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF IRVINE
CI-1 The comment references a discussion in the EIR describing local and
regional agency trends toward development of each of their respec-
tive General Plans. The discussion does not specifically pertain
to the City of Irvine Conservation/Open Space Update, which will
designate several areas of additional open space within the General
Plan. As determined in the analysis of the overall cumulative
effect, however, implementation of future projects planned by the
City and other jurisdictions within the study area will convert
currently undeveloped land to the urban land uses designated in the
General Plans. Tables 7.A through 7.D indicate a trend toward
development of urban land uses.
The discussion (page 324, second and third paragraphs of the Draft
EIR) acknowledges the jurisdictional efforts to preserve open space
and reduce the effects of open space conversion, including the
current Irvine Conservation/Open Space Element. Adoption of the
Conservation/Open Space Update is not expected to change the EIR
conclusion that the project, in conjunction with future projects in
the region, will result in a cumulative impact due to open space
reduction.
CI-2 In a recent decision by the County of Orange Local Agency Formation
Commission (Resolution No. 88-21, April 6, 1988), the City of
Irvine sphere of influence boundary change was denied. Clarifica-
tion of boundary may still be required and will be appropriately
handled if and when the project area is annexed to either City.
Therefore;- - the-gro-ject-s4te--is- -not - Sri-t4rin--the--1r0ne
boundary:
CI-3 As stated in the Land Use section of the EIR, the project will
construct arterial and collector roads, water and sewer facilities,
drainage improvements and utilities in accordance with the LCP.
This development is not expected to result in an increase in demand
for public facilities provided by the City of Irvine. Pelican Hill
Road is a public facility, partially within the City, which is
integrated into the design of the project. However, Pelican Hill
Road will be completed prior to completion of the project and has
been designed to be compatible with the elements of this project.
•
5-3
LSB
CI-4 The DEIR 485 traffic analysis evaluated several alternative circu-
lation scenarios regarding with and without certain arterials and
the Corridor. The following summarizes the scenarios evaluated in
this study:
1. 1990 no Project, no Corridor, no Pelican Hill Road;
2. 1990 with Phase 1 of the project, no Pelican Hill Road
and no Corridor;
3. Post 2010 no Project, no Pelican Hill Road, and no Sand
Canyon Avenue;
4. Post-2010 with Project, without Corridor, and with Peli-
can Hill Road;
5. Post-2010 with Project, with Corridor, with Pelican Hill
• Road.
The traffic study, therefore, has provided a thorough analysis of
traffic conditions with and without several major arterials, and
conducted a good faith effort in this analysis of interim condi-
tions.
The traffic impacts of the project are more than offset by the
transportation improvements provided, therefore, no unmitigated
impacts are anticipated as part of the project. LCP Transporta-
tion/Circulation Policy 22 provides for additional mitigation if
actual project traffic exceeds LCP estimated traffic by more than
ten percent.
The responsibility for interim mitigations would depend on a number
of factors, and would be determined by the agency which made
assumptions dependent on certain mitigation. It is important to
note that, based on the phasing requirements of the project
improvements, no significant traffic impacts will occur as a result
of the first phase or ultimate buildout of the Irvine Coast.
•
5-4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE'DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
•P.O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 94296.0001
(916) 445-7067
April 22, 1988
Mr. Ronald L. Tippets, Chief
Coastal Planning Section
Environmental Management Agency
Post Office Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Tippets:
Comments on DEIR 485 for the Irvine Coast
The California Department of Parks and Recreation is submitting the following
comments in regard to DEIR 486.
1. The DEIR addresses existing and projected conditions and impacts of
• sediment yield in the Irvine Coast. Sediment yield from the Irvine Coast
frontal slopes is a factor in beach sand replenishment at Crystal Cove
State Park. It is not clear how future Irvine Coast sediment yields will
affect the total "sand budget" of the beaches at Crystal Cove State Park. DPR-1
Local sources of sand and sediment are known to be very important for the
formation of the beach. Changes in supply of these sources could result
in negative impacts and "sand starvation" of the recreational beach. The
report should address potential impacts on beach sand replenishment, and
mitigation for those impacts.
2. A major resource objective at Crystal Cove State Park is the restoration
and perpetuation of native plant communities. The Department is imple-
menting on -going revegetation projects to accomplish this. The use of
non-invasive landscaping immediately around park development facilities
Is the only exception to this policy. In pursuing this native revegeta-
tion objective, the Department is concerned about the spread of invasive DPR-2
and non-native landscape plants naturalizing in the park and undermining
our resource goals.' The DEIR should address this issue.
3. The following are our comments on Irvine Coast cultural resources.
a. Direct effect on sites within Crystal Cove State Park:
Change of slope/drainage/erosion within the development tract could
potentially affect the six CCSP archeological sites within 1000 feet
of the boundary line. As these types of impact will be covered in DPR-3
• an engineering assessment there is no definitive comment we can
make. RECEIVED
APR 26 1988
I VA
6-1
Mr. Ronald L. Tippets
• April 22, 1988
Page 2
b. Indirect effects on sites within Crystal Cove State Park:
Macko's appendix to the EIR recognizes a unique aspect of the Irvine
Ranch: archeological features were protected from population
pressures for many years. The tract (of which Crystal Cove SP was DPR-4
once a part) contains most of the relatively undisturbed coastal
strand/canyon sites in Orange County.
The development of the tract withdraws these sites from the archeo-
logical savings account. The evaluation of the direct effects of DPR-5
this is the responsibility of Orange County.
The indirect effects on Crystal Cove SP archeological'sites from
this development are likely to increase significantly. Use of the
park, one predicts, will increase many fold. This will result in DPR-6
more vandalism, erosional loss, and, perhaps, pressure for added
visitor facilities. Sites within the park will be adversely
impacted, given the expected increased use patterns.
In view of this, it seems wise to make some general statements on the
preservation recommendations for sites in Irvine Planned Community
Tract. The study precisely maps the areal extent of the sites within the
. development tract, and estimates average depth. Estimated Impacts to
cultural resources were made for 35 sites (Table 5-2) but the site volume
potentially impacted is given without listing either the total volume
estimate of the site, or the percent of the site to be impacted. There DPR-7
is no way, short of lengthy caculations from individual site data, to
determine the amount of destruction to significant sites.
Therefore, we are unable to judge whether avoidance (the preferred method DPR-6
of preservation) is a major thrust of the plan.
"Maintaining five feet of separation from excavations is adequate
avoidance" (5-4). This is, in our experience, an inadequate buffer when I DPR-9
heavy equipment is involved.
"Burial of sites in excess of 10 feet of material cannot be considered
'capping' since the permanency of such burial would preclude future I DPR-10
access" (5-4). We accept inaccessibility as preferable to complete
destruction.
The study acknowledges the presence of, but does not record or map, the
twentieth century truck farming activities within the tract. These may DPR-11
be completely destroyed without any recordation.
4. The Master Drainage Improvement Plan addresses our concerns regarding
redirection of surface flows to the major drainages. However, flows
through four of the culverts in PA 3B (those just south of proposed Sand DPR-12
• Canyon Avenue) currently result in severe and chronic undercutting of our
facilities, and eventual undercutting of PCH. A detention basin is
6-2
• Mr. Ronald L. Tippets
April 22, 1988
Page 3
proposed upstream of two of these culverts to mitigate peak discharge;
detention basins for the other two (those closest to proposed Sand Canyon
Avenue) should be added. The proposed reductions in peak discharge
(Q ) are only minimal, and further reductions are needed to avoid
jeopardizing PCH (with or without additional lanes) and for protection of
State Park property and resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on'the DEIR for the
Irvine Coast. If you have any question, please call Alan Tang at (916)
323-4268.
Sincerely,
e n
Richard G. Rayburn, Chief
Resource Protection Division
•
•
6-3
r
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPR-1 The MDRMP contains an extensive discussion of potential sediment
issues at pp. III-1 to III-6. As the analysis indicates, present
sediment generation conditions reflect abnormal conditions result-
ing from excessive sediment generation caused by cattle grazing.
The post -development sediment generation conditions will more
closely approximate "natural" conditions of a typical coastal
vegetation ground cover than the present conditions of excessive
sedimentation manifested in numerous incised areas (see the MRDMP
in general and the LSA analysis of Pelican Hill Drainage Habitats
in the Irvine Coast LCP technical appendices). Accordingly, if the
landowner were to halt cattle grazing and allow natural re -vegeta-
tion processes to occur, sediment generation under the post -grazing
natural conditions scenario would be comparable to sediment genera-
tion in the post-LCP/MCDP development scenario. Also please refer
. to the Response to Comments section of the Irvine Coast LCP, at p.
153, for a review of beach sand replenishment considerations. It
should be noted that LCP provisions for preserving 75% of the LCP
area in open space is a significant mitigation measure for address-
ing long-term sedimentation concerns. Also, it should be noted
that the MDRMP proposed low flow pass through devices to allow
sediment to pass through detention basins.
DPR-2 The DEIR addresses the use of invasive, non-native species in the
interface between development and open space areas (Mitigation
Measure 6-12). In the Local Coastal Program (LCP), Development/
Open Space Policy Number 4 states that an ecotone area will be
developed in the buffer zone between development and native scrub
habitat. This ecotone area will utilize either native Californian
or non-invasive, non-native plant species. The buffer zone is
required for fuel modification. In addition, LCP Grading Policy
Number 6 states that all cut and fill slopes involving grading
shall be stabilized through planting of native annual grasses and
shrubs, or appropriate non-native plants valuable for erosion
protection.
DPR-3 There are no potential direct effects to any archaeological sites
within Crystal Cove State Park. The tract boundary does border
CCSP for a short distance along the east side of lots 58 and 59 at
the west edge of Muddy Canyon, however the.nearest site within CCSP
in this area is approximately 1,500 feet beyond the boundary on the
6-4
u
Lsa
other side of Muddy Canyon. Along the rest of the eastern boundary
of the tract, the CCSP boundary is 1,000 to 4,500 feet away with
Muddy Canyon (open space) separating the two.
The tract also adjoins CCSP and PCH, surrounds the CCSP parking lot
at Los Trancos Canyon, and along the east boundary of Lots 2 and 3
near Cameo Shores. Presumably, no direct effects could result to
the archaeological resources beneath the CCSP Parking Lot, and the
two sites within 1,000 feet of Lots 2 and 3 could not be impacted
by erosion, etc. since they are at the same or higher elevation
than the areas which could be graded.
DPR-4 The tract does not contain "most of the relatively undisturbed
coastal strand/canyon sites in Orange County". There are approxi-
mately 2,000 recorded archaeological sites in Orange County. The
38 sites within the tract comprise less than two percent of this
total. Within the area of Orange County that can be classified as
coastal strand/canyon, there are probably about 500-1,000 sites,
depending on the locations of fractions of the sites along the
coast in Orange County. Many of these are more disturbed than
comparable sites in urban areas due to the greater length of time
that agricultural activities have been pursued.
DPR-5 The implementation of proposed impact mitigation measures will
sufficiently recover all site values for which each site has been
determined important, per regulatory criteria. The permanent
document of these remains (raw data and artifacts) will ensure that
the "savings account" is not reduced or lost to "early withdrawal".
DPR-6 The management plan for CCSP appears to consider many educational
and scientific research purposes. It does not seem possible to
predict at this time, however, what proportion of the future resi-
dents of the tract will adversely impact the archaeological sites
within CCSP. In general, though, indirect impacts are a rather
nebulous category of impact due to the difficulty with which they
can, or cannot, be modelled. It is important to note that one of
the purposes of the CCSP is to provide public access to open space,
therefore the impacts of increased use on all resources should be
considered by the State in their management plans for CCSP.
DPR-7 The estimated impacts are based on the assumption that 100% of
potentially impacted sites will be destroyed. This is simply for
calculation purposes, and does not imply that 100% of each site
•
6-5
Lsa
will be destroyed. Rather, specific development plans are simply
not available, since area plans have not been prepared by
individual builders. At present, only the roads, infrastructure
and associated grading have been identified. These latter
facilities would impact 100% of seven sites.
The primary purpose of providing the precise information on site
location and significance for each lot is to have as much informa-
tion available at the earliest stage of project design so that
sites can be avoided. The volumes listed in Table 5-2 are the
Total site volume. The estimated recovery volume represents the
volume of the site total where over 90% of the site values are
contained.
Within each site discussion, information on the total site area
with lithic or shell remains is listed in a header section. Multi-
plying the larger of these numbers by the average depth (also
• listed in each site header) produces the calculation of the "volume
potentially impacted" listed in Table 5-2.
DPR-8 It is acknowledged that avoidance is a preferred method of preser-
vation. The EIR analyzed a worst -case scenario of maximum excava-
tion in the event that site design cannot avoid sites.
DPR-9 The statement that five feet is adequate space to provide a buffer
refers to the degree of accuracy with which the site locations and
boundaries have been plotted on engineering drawings. If a fence
or some other preventive barrier were placed five feet beyond the
documented site boundaries, then avoidance would be confidently
accomplished. In addition, sites determined to be located greater
than five feet beyond the tract boundary are considered not to be
within the tract (i.e. Ora-668).
DPR-10 The distinction between sites capped with less than ten feet of
fill and those capped with greater than ten feet of fill is arbi-
trary. This statement inadvertently omitted the qualifying criter-
ia that in grading areas where fill is to be placed, it may be
necessary to first make deep removals of soil and rock (archaeology
sites included) before compacted fill can be placed per County
grading standards. In these instances, the sites could be com-
pletely destroyed before capping. Since the majority of sites are
less than three feet in depth, and most site soils are extremely
loose, unconsolidated, sandy loam, site preparation for fill is
(-1
•
•
•
unnr:x�kx
µtffA It�1PJfl
IRVINE RAW LITER DISTRICT P.O. Box 0-1.18802 Bardeen Ave. • Irvine. Calif. 92716-6025 (714) 833-1223
April 25, 1988
0453BS3/88
PL 7.2
Mr. Ronald L. Tippets
Orange County Environmental Mgmt. Agency
PO Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) #485,
IRVINE COAST MASTER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
Dear Mr. Tippets:
The�Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #485. The EIR addresses most of IRWD's
concerns as to impacts of the water and sewer system. It is IRWD's intent
to reference EIR #485 as much as possible to minimize the need for
additional project specific environmental documentation. IRWD may then
incorporate measures identified in EIR #485 into the design of the domestic
water booster stations, transmission mains, storage reservoirs,
distribution mains, wastewater collector sewers, sewage .lift stations,
monitoring systems and maintenance facilities. Identifying these projects
and impacts in EIR #485 will allow IRWD to install the water and sewer
systems in as timely a schedule as possible without unnecessary delays.
IRWD would like to make the following clarifications to DEIR #485:
Page 29, Paragraph 3
Pacific Coast Highway is the location of proposed points of connection for
water and sewer lines. While most of the water or sewer systems will be
buried, the electrical monitoring systems for the pumps, valves and flow IRWD-1
meters will have electrical meters and transmitters that will have to be
above ground.
The fourth sentence states "An emergency pump station is planned at this
connection (PCH at PHR) to allow pumping from the 33—inch line to the 3.4
million gallon reservoir." The pump station is proposed to be located on
the west side of PHR a few hundred feet inland from PCH. It will not be an
emergency pumping station, but rather the primary source of domestic water IRWD-2
pumping up to 4.5 million gallons per day to the 4.1 million gallon Zone 2
reservoir which will serve the hotels, golf courses, commercial and
residential developments along PCH.
7-1
•
r1
L
Mr. Ronald L. Tippet's 0453BS3/88
OCEMA PL 7.2
April 25, 1988 Page 2 of 4
The Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 will construct all the sewer
facilities in PCH from Corona Del Mar to the hotel at Muddy Canyon, Lot
60. IRWD or develpers will connect collector sewers to the PCH Trunk Sewer IRWD-3
at seven locations: north end of Lot 3 (Camel del Mar), southwest side of
Lot 4 (golf course), at PHR, two connections at Lot 55 for hotels on Lots
54 and 53, at Sand Canyon Avenue, and at the Lot 60 hotel.
Page 44
Four reservoirs are proposed to serve this development. A 1.3 million
gallons (MG) Zone 1 reservoir along Pacific Coast Highway may not be
necessary at this time. It is proposed as a replacement for E1 Morro IRWD-4
Reservoir in the event that E1 Morro Reservoir becomes inoperable or its
capacity is reduced.
The Zone 2 reservoir is in the preliminary design stages. Initial work
indicates that the capacity will be increased from 3.4 MG in the Irvine
Coast Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) to 4.1 MG. Increasing the size of the
reservoir will change the dimensions stated in the DEIR. IRWD wishes to
keep the option of an above ground reservoir open. As grading plans for
this and the following two reservoirs have not yet been prepared, maximum
height of cut and fill slopes listed in the EIR is only approximate.
The preliminary design of the Zone 4 reservoir, which was sized at 6.1 MG
in the Irvine Coast SAMP, indicates that the capacity will be increased to
7 MG. The increase in size of the reservoir will increase the dimensions
stated in the DEIR. Additional soils exploration has been performed which
indicates that burying the reservoir may not be economically feasible.
IRWD wishes to keep the alternative of an above ground reservoir open.
Design for the 2.2 MG Zone
dimensions and location fo
IRWD has not determined if
Page 4B, Paragraph 3
IRWD-5
fIT17�
6 reservoir has not begun, therefore the '
r the reservoir are only proposed and not final. I IRWD-7
the reservoir will be buried.
Domestic water pump stations are proposed at San Joaquin Reservoir, at each
-proposed reservoir, at Pacific Coast Highway and Sand Canyon Avenue,
Pacific Coast Highway and Pelican Hill Road, and also at Wishbone Hill.
The design of these pump stations is only preliminary, so IRWD has not yet
determined if these pump stations will be buried or above ground. These
pump stations will be equipped with remote telemetry monitoring and control
systems. The telemetry systems have gauges, meters, transmitters and
associated electric circuitry that needs to be above ground. The primary
purpose of the pumping stations at PCH and PHR and at PCH and Sand Canyon
Avenue is to serve the development along PCH.
IRWD-8
7-2
•
•
Mr. Ronald L. Tippets
OCEMA
April 25, 1988
Page 276, Paragraph 2
0453BS3/88
PL 7.2
Page 3 of 4
IRWD will own 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) of domestic water capacity in
the relocated 33—inch Coastal Supply Line. IRWD owns 20 cfs capacity
rights at the OC-57 turnout. And in the San Joaquin Reservoir, IRWD has IRWD-9
capacity rights to 1,071 acre—feet (AF) of the reservoir's total capacity
of 3,050 AF.
Page 283, Paragraph 3 (Mitigation 11-3) & Page 285, Paragraph 2
(Mitigation 11-12)
The water system will be designed to provide adequate fire flows (2500
gallons per minute for 4 hours for residential and 5000 gpm for 4 hours for IRWD-10
hotel/commercial). As previously stated it has not been determined if the
reservoirs will be buried or not.
Page 293
The list of reservoir sites indicates that sites IE, 2F and 3B have been
selected for the reservoirs. As stated previously,, the final sites for the IRWD-11
reservoirs have not been determined by IRWD as the reservoirs are in
preliminary design stages now.
Page 320, Cumulative Impact Analysis — Hydrology/Water Resources
The first sentence which states that "the proposed PROJECT... will increase
runoff and urban pollutants in the Pacific Ocean" is true. More runoff
will occur because the PROJECT will result in some currently natural areas
being covered with impermeable materials such as street pavement, concrete
sidewalks and buildings. Additionally, more runoff will occur because the
golf courses, streetscapes, parks, buffer areas, front yards, etc. will be
irrigated where no irrigation currently exists. Urban pollutants such as
heavy metals from automobile traffic, pesticides, fertilizers and cleaning
solvents will be present in an area that presently generates none of these.
The second sentence, . improved maintenance activities and continuing
management plans for the region may offset or even reduce the volume of
pollutants reaching the ocean," is wishful thinking at best if not outright
disingenuous. While it is true that storm drain improvements will reduce
the total mass of sediments reaching the ocean, this works in opposition to
the natural erosion process whereby sand and gravel is washed down to
replenish beach sands. To compound the negative impact of the storm drain
system preventing sand from reaching the beach, the storm drain will now
deliver the above mentioned urban pollutants to the ocean. The amount of
these urban pollutants will probably be less than the amount of sand now
reaching the ocean; however, these urban pollutants have the potential for
a very significant adverse impact upon the Crystal Cove State Undersea Park
to which they will be discharged.
IRWD-12
IRWD-13
Imo -
7-3
Mr. Ronald L. Tippets
OCEMA
April 25, 1988
•
A possible mitigation measure
the first storm flows of each
suspended and dissolved urban
Irvine Coast sewer system is
Additional Comments
0453BS3/88
PL 7.2
Page 4 of 4
for the impacts mentioned above is to capture
rainy season for treatment to remove the
pollutants before they reach the ocean. The IRWD-14
not sized to accept these storm flows.
Please note also that IRWD may create a new pipeline project to back—up the
Wishbone Hill interim system. This pipeline would extend from Pelican Hill
Road across Los Trancos Canyon and tie—in to the Wishbone Hill system.
This pipeline will have to cross open space and further analysis of this
system is required before its implementation. This back—up system is
provided for in the Irvine Coast Subarea Master Plan prepared by IRWD and
is necessary to insure continuous water service to this area of the
development.
Please feel free to contact this office if there are any questions.
•
BS/SM:so
cc: Ergun Bakall, IRWD
Keith Lewinger, IRWD
Bill Stewart, IRWD
Carollyn Lobell, LSA
L
Sincerely,
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT
SteveMalloy
�
Project Manager
IRWD-15
7-4
Lsa
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT
IRWD-1
Comment is hereby incorporated into the Final EIR.
IRWD-2
Comment is hereby incorporated into Final EIR.
IRWD-3
Comment acknowledged. No response required.
IRWD-4
Comment acknowledged. No response required.
IRWD-5
Comment acknowledged. No response required.
IRWD-6
Comment acknowledged. No response required.
IRWD-7
Comment acknowledged. The impacts associated with this reservoir
will be evaluated upon final design of the alternative.
•
IRWD-8
Comment is hereby incorporated into Final EIR.
IRWD-9
Comment is hereby incorporated into Final EIR.
IRWD-10
Comment is hereby incorporated into Final EIR.
IRWD-11
Comment is hereby incorporated into Final EIR.
IRWD-12,
Please see Irvine Coast LCP Response to Comments at pp. 159-160.
1.3; 14
Also, please refer to the extensive discussion throughout the MDRMP
of the water quality implications of runoff management within the
LCP area. The use of natural drainage channels and other mitiga-
tion measures, in conjunction with a system of multiple discharge
locations releasing stormwater flows into an ocean environment
characterized by strong mixing currents, are expected to eliminate
any potential marine environment impacts from residential and
visitor -serving areas. Accordingly, a system designed to capture
the first storm flow is not required. With regard to beach sand
replenishment, please refer to the section in this Response to
Comments addressing the first question raised to the California
Department of Parks and Recreation letter.
IRWD-13
The MDRMP contains an extensive discussion of potential sediment
issues at pp. III-1 to III-6. As the analysis indicates, present
sediment generation conditions reflect abnormal conditions result-
7-5
r
ing from excessive sediment generation caused by cattle grazing.
The post -development sediment generation conditions will more
closely approximate "natural" conditions of a typical coastal
vegetation ground cover than the present conditions of excessive
sedimentation manifested in numerous incised areas (see the MRDMP
in general and the LSA analysis of Pelican Hill Drainage Habitats
in the Irvine Coast LCP technical appendices). Accordingly, if the
landowner were to halt cattle grazing and allow natural re -vegeta-
tion processes to occur, sediment generation under the post -grazing
natural conditions scenario would be comparable to sediment genera-
tion in the post-LCP/MCDP development scenario. Also please refer
to the Response to Comments section of the Irvine Coast LCP, at p.
153, for a review of beach sand replenishment considerations. It
should be noted that LCP provisions for preserving 75% of the LCP
area in open space is a significant mitigation measure for address-
ing long-term sedimentation concerns. Also it should be noted that
the MDRMP proposes low flow pass through devices to allow sediment
• to pass through detention basins.
IRWD-15 Comment acknowledged. This system was included in the project
description and analyzed in the EIR. If-the-desex4bed-pipel4ne-4s
implemented; - the -env4renmentel-4W4cat+ons-*f it -wou•14-be -eµal•ua-
ted-at-that-time
11
7-6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
• DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
P O Box 6598
LOS ANGELES
90055-1598
•
•
APP 1 2 1088
County of Orange, E.M.A.
P. 0. Box 4o48
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Attention: Coastal Planning Section
Subject: Notice of Preparation of DEIR 485 for the Irvine Coast Master Coastal
Development Permit (CD 88-11P) and Vesting TT, Map 13337, dated
March 11, 1988, SCH# 88012010.
Your referenced document has been reviewed by our Department staff.
Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage
prevention, are attached.
The Department recommends that you consider,i comprehensive
program to use reclaimed water for irrigateM urposes der to free fresh
water supplies for beneficial uses that 3%gjrire high qua water.
For further information, you may wish t i�onta o1,bYa �e i at
213-620-3951• i
Thank you for the opportunity to review,�nc� cdp�ent`'�;ml> thi port
Sincerely,
Charles R. White
Planning Branch
Southern Distric
Attachments
cc: Office of P,
State Clear,
1400 Tenth
Sacramento,
• DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RECLAMATION
To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described
here.
Roquir*d
The following State laws require water -efficient plumbing fixtures in
structures:
o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low -flush toilets and
urinals in virtually all buildings as follows:
"After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state
shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which
are water -conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated
flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
o 'title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the
maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink
• faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National
Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI
A112.18.lm-1979•
0
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance
with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable
efficiency standards.
luaiirornia Energy conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards.
o Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(i) and (.1)
address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used befo
hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to
steam and steam -condensate return piping and recirculating hot water
piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water -heating
systems is also required.
E
FWA
• o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most
instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with
self -closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented where applicable
Interior:
1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater then 50 pounds per square
inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure -reducing
valve.
2. Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self -closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.*
• Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower.
4. Laundry facilities: Water -conserving models of washers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water -conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
served upon request only.*
6. Ultra -low -flush toilets: 1-1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction.
Exterior:*
1. Landscape with low water -using plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn -dependent uses, such as
playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses.
3. Group plants of.similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low -water -using plants.
4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low -water -using
landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information.
•
8-3
E
5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low -water -using conditions and their use saves water
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
7: Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize -the water that will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and'to aid in ground water recharge.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being
• converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
M
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
In flood -prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2.. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Environmental Impact Report.
4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
• soon as possible (utilizing native or low -water -using plant material).
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
•
FM
LSB
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
General Response: The recommendations made by the Department of Resources
will be considered at the time of detailed Project De-
sign. However, such comments are not applicable to the
FEIR.
M.
•
•
04/27/88 14:47 DOG DIST 1
State of California i
Memorandum
To Dr, Gordon F. Snow
Assistant secretary for Resources
Ms. Patricia Shoemaker
County of Orange, Environmental
Management Agency
12 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From : Doportment of Conservatien—Offico of the Diredor
NO.001 002 /
jj - l
U- ESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA/
/G
Date : APR 111988
Subject, DEIR - Irvine Coast Master
Coastal Development 6
Tentative Tract 13337 -
Orange County,
SCH #88012010
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil and Gas has reviewed the
subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and has the following
comments for your consideration.
There are four and possibly two additional abandoned oil wells within the
project area. Division of Oil and Gas map W1-6 may be used to approximate the
location of these wells.
To ensure proper review of building projects within the subject area, the
Division has provided the County of Orange a 'Construction Project Site Review
and Well Abandonment Procedure' packet. The procedures outline the
information that a project developer must submit to the Division for review -
if any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously
abandoned well, there is the possibility that the well may need to be
reabandoned. Public Resources Code Section 3208.1 authorizes the State Oil
and Gas Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well
when construction Of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could
result in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations shall be the
responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be
located.
Although future problems from oil and gas wells that have been abandoned or
reabandoned to the Division's current specifications are remote, we,
nevertheless, recommend that an effort be made to avoid building over any
abandoned well. If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we
recommend that an approved gas venting system be placed over the well.
Written approval from the State Oil and Gas Supervisor is required prior to
plugging or abandoning any well. The operator's notice of intent to perform
any well operations is reviewed on an engineering and geological basis, The
approval of a notice depends primarily on the following: protecting all
subsurface hydrocarbons and fresh water, protection of the environment, using
adequate blowout prevention equipment, and utilizing accepted cementing
techniques. The Division must also be notified to witness or inspect all
operations specified in the approval of any notice. These include tests and
inspections of blowout prevention equipment, reservoir and
freshwater -protection measures, and well -plugging operations.
9-1
04/27/88
i
14;48 DOG DIST 1 NO.001 003
Dr. Gordon F. snow
Ma. Patricia Shoemaker
Page 2
I£ you have any questions, please contact Ken Carlson at our Long Beach
District office. The address is 245 West Broadway, suite 475, Long Beach, CA
90802; phone (213) 590-5311,
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
Co. Ken Carlson, Division of Oil and Gas, Long Beach
Bob Reid, Division of Oil and Gas, Sacramento
LC:DJO:mWW
1108A/0063A
9-2
Lsa
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
General Response: The comments contained in this letter are acknowledged,
however they are not directly applicable to the FEIR.
The "Well Abandonment Procedure and/or necessary permit
will be processed by each individual builder proposing
development within the Irvine Coast Planned Community.
9-3
INDEX TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
(RECEIVED AFTER APRIL 27, 1988)
•
9-4
State of California
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
• To EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Office of Planning & Res&arch
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
W. B. BALLANTINE
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Date : April 29, 1988
File No.: IGR
Subject
County of Orange DEIR 485
Irvine Coast Master CDP and
88012010 Vesting TT Map 13337
Caltrans has reviewed the above -referenced document and provides
the following comments.
As the County is aware, an Encroachment Permit from our Agency
will be required for this project. In addition, Caltrans is
working with the developer to process a Project Study Report
(PSR) and Project Report (PR), for the proposed widening of
Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1). It has been agreed that
EIR 485 would provide the environmental clearances necessary to
approve the PSR and PR.
• Caltrans requests that the following revisions be incorporated
into the document. Add to mitigation measure 4-4 on page 151
that a Caltrans archaeologist will participate in a pre -grading
conference to establish procedures regarding discovery of
unexpected archaeological resources within Caltrans ROW. If
there is any landscaping proposed within Caltrans ROW, Caltrans'
review should be added to mitigation measures 6=10 on page 186.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the document. We look
forward to continued cooperation to assist the County and
developer with the Caltrans permits and processing. If we can be
of further assistance, please call Deborah Harmon at
(213) 620-4913.
W. B ANTINE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
Attach.
cc: Patricia Shoemaker, OCEMA
•
DOT-1
DOT-2
DOT-3
10-1
RESPONSE TO CONNEHTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DOT-1 Comment acknowledged - no response required.
DOT-2 Comment acknowledged, the EIR is hereby revised.
DOT-3 Comment
time, alt
accommoda
•
0
ENR-REG TEL No.855 7425 Apr 29,88 16:20 P.02
STATE OF CALIFOANIA—THE 9E50VACIS AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gow/nor
DEPARNENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
•P.O. BOX 942899
SA[AAMENTO 94296-0001
(916) 323-4268
•
•
March 21, 1988
Ms. Patriria Shoemaker
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ann, CA 92702-4048
Dear Ms, Shoemaker:
Irvine Coast Master Coastal Development
Permit CD88-11P, Review Comments
We have reviewed the above document and are providing our comments as
requested. Review comments are based on verifying compliance with the
Irvine Coast LCP First Amendment and identifying development proposal
impacts on Crystal Cove State Park.
Our comments are as follows:
1. Page I-10, Item 1.4.1
Requetitgd Development Rights within Master CDP Boundary. This
Master Coastal Development Permit is the entitlement document for
the following development right: Future widening of Pacific DPR-1
Coast Highway along State Park Frontage". What are the legal
requirements on the State due to this item?
Page VI-6, Planning Area 1C
Mester,Drainage Improvements. A detention basin is proposed for
a site adjacent to our Los Trancos parking area. This basin is
identified in narrative on Page VI-6 and in the Master Drainage
Improvements Plan (exhibit 6.3). The basin is not included,
however, in the Hydrology Map in the MCDP Appendix Hydrology
Study. Is the Appendix Hydrology Map incorrect? Also there is
no preliminary grading sketch of this Los Trancos detention basin
as there are for the other detention basins. A preliminary
grading sketch should be included so that grading impacts on
adjacent State park property can be assessed.
The balance of the Irvine Coast MCDP document appears to be consistent
with the certified LCP First Amendment. Comments on the Master Drainage
and Runoff Management Plan will be made in our review of the Irvine Coast
Draft E.I.R. 5485(SCH *88012010).
DPR-2
Hi CF.IV( D
MAID 2 ,11988
EMA,
EMA-REG
• 'Ms. Shoemaker
Page 2
•
TEL No.83b �424�
Hpr 29,88 1b:2U 1'.U1
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any
questions about our comments, contact Alan Tang at (916) 323-4268.
nears ly,
Kerry tes
Senior andscape Architect
cc: Bernard Manisealc0
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Drive
P.O.Box 1
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904
11-2
Lsa
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPR-1 The MCDP "a77ows for" widening under the LCP, however it does not
"require" that PCH be widened. The Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion are "responsible" per CEQA to comment on the proposed widening
however the Department is not "required" to comment.
DPR-2 The detention basin proposed adjacent to Los Trancos will be con-
fined to Irvine Property and will not impact the parking lot. The
sizing and location of the basin will be defined in the refined
Master Drainage Runoff Management Plan and will be submitted to the
Department of Parks and Recreation for review.
•
11-3
•EMF-RE6
•
TEL No.835 7425
Apr 29,88 15:22 P.04
STATE OF CAIIFORNIA—TNE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEURMGIAN, Gaw or
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `
245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 w'
long Beach, CA 90802-4457'
(213) 590-5113
April 26, 1988
Ronald L. Tippets, Chief
Coastal Planning Section
Environmental Management Agency
County of Orange
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Tippets:
We have reviewed the Draft EIR 485 (DEIR) for the Irvine Coast Master
Coastal Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13337
(SCH 88012010). The project area encompasses 9,432 acres in the
unincorporated foothills of Orange County and is located entirely
within the Coastal Zone as contained in the Local Coastal Program
certified on January 14, 1988. The Irvine Company owns 6,625 acres
within the plaftned community. The remaining 2,807 acres were sold or
dedicated to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the
Crystal Cove State Park. The proposal includes 2,600 dwelling units in
sixteen planning units totalling 1,992 acres, a golf course, regional
parks, and conservation areas comprising 4,427 acres.
We believe that significant retention of open space is contained in the
DEIR and is a positive feature of the project. However, the document
is inadequate in meeting CEQA requirements in the following respects:
1. The Riparian Habitat Creation Program (RHCP) is not clear as to the
net gain or loss that may result from the proposed development.
The proposed RHCP of 30 feet by 4,000 feet (2.75 acres) located
within or adjacent to the golf course and residential developments
could be expected to retain little wildlife value when compared to
the lost habitat where adjacent uplands of grass/coastal sage
habitats complement the riparian habitat and provide higher
carrying capacities of wildlife (page 62). The proposed retention
of the drainages shown in Figure 3.24 will retain open space
corridors, but they will be of limited value. The proposed 50-foot
buffer zone results in substantially reducing the wildlife carrying
capacities due to the loss of adjacent upland habitats.
2. It is not clear what wildlife value can be expected within the
Wilderness Open Space Dedication Program as the allowable uses
within the No. 3 "Other Open Space" and No. B "Special Use Open
Space Dedication". The document should be more specific regarding.
the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) which are
'identified in the DEIR (page 111). The ESHA illustrated in Figure
4.14 should depict the areas within the Irvine development, the
existing Cry::tal Cove State Park, and the proposed dedication
areas. ()
APR 2919c�9
.:n
DFG-1
DFG-2
12-1
•EmR-REG
TEL N0.855 7425
rpr 2„S� 1t :t: r.uo
_2_ April 26, 1988
Mr.
Tippets
3.
The document indicates that Newport Say is the source o:
other iused als (ingwould
making this
likeutonknowcthe isource aof information nd
determination.
4.
We agree that the borders of two habitats commonly form an ecotone
either habitat alone (page 167).
with animal activity higher than
be considered when RHCP and mitigation measures
This factor should
are and it is certainly a key facto:- in determining
proposed,.
significance of impacts,
5.
The expected impacts of development.at buildout should be presented
sbermadeal
in the DEIR.' The exif determination oflosses oeach significancehabitattis toype
any evaluation orpected
(page 177).
6,
We concur that a decrease of wildlife and habitat will occur and
the and quality of potential
suggest that a prediction of quantity
habitat losses be presented in the DEIR (page 178).
7.
The DEIR does not provide adequate information or basis to result
The proposed dedication of
in a finding of "nonsignificance".
is very positive feature of the project. However, resource
•
lands a
losses would occur and they should be quantified (pages lei and
188).
S.
There is no response in Section 8.0 (Unavoidable Adverse Impacts)
be provided for
in the DEIR. We suggest such information should
adequate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
the document to be considered
Diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel,
bed, or bank of any rivet, stream, or lake will require notification to
the Department of Fish and Game as called for in the Fish and Game
Code. This notification (with fee) and the subss. equent agreement must
be be madelafterptherto projecttisting any approvedsbyhtheane
lead agency -
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
If you have any qu�.stions, please contact Jack L. Spruill of our
Environmental Service staff a (213) 590-5137.
Sincerely,
Frei Worthley
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc, R. Hein
G. Gerstenberg
•
DFG-3
DFG-4
DFG-5
DFG-6
DFG-7
DFG-8
DFG-9
12-2
�J
Lsa
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DFG-1 The Riparian Habitat Creation Program (RHCP) is intended to act as
mitigation for any adverse habitat impacts caused by modification
or elimination of drainages within the proposed hotel/golf course
complex. These drainages do not support riparian habitats. The
development of the RHCP would result in a net increase of riparian
habitats within this area; however, there will still be a net loss
of riparian habitats in the Irvine Coast area. As indicated on
page 181, the Coastal Commission addressed this issue. Their
findings were that overall mitigation is achieved through the
development and dedication program which preserves large scale,
contiguous areas of habitat in a natural condition, as opposed to
preserving isolated habitat areas within or in close proximity to
development. The net "balance" of impacts resulting from this
program favors the natural environment overall, thereby mitigating
• the loss of habitat within the development area.
In addition to the development and dedication program, the majority
of development will be limited to the ridgetops and wf77 not di-
rectly impact the riparian habitats. It is acknowledged that the
development of areas surrounding these riparian areas will indi-
rectly impact the use of these areas by wildlife; however, it was
felt that preservation of these areas was justified based on their
scarcity and value for wildlife.
It is acknowledged that there will be indirect impact to the ripar-
ian drainages as the result of development of the PROJECT area.
However, the development areas have been set back from the
drainages to reduce the overall impact. In addition, an inspection
of Figure 3.28 in the DEIR will show that the two sensitive drain-
ages in the PROJECT boundaries, Buck Gully and Los Trancos Canyon,
are included within an open space area that extends appreciably
beyond the actual limits of the streamcourses and includes upland
habitats.
DFG-2 The Wilderness Open Space Dedication Program applies only to Area
2A as shown on Figure 3.28. The program was designed primarily as
mitigation for the impacts occurring in the development areas.
Area 3, or other Open Space areas, was not considered for dedica-
tion to preserve habitat. These areas are being maintained to
protect a major portion of exposed bluffs on Pelican and Wishbone
•
12-3
Lsa
Hills for visual and aesthetic purposes. These lands will be
placed under private ownership.
Area 2B as designated on Figure 3.28 will be offered as part of the
Local Park Implementation Plan. These areas will provide large
open spaces for passive recreational uses. They provide signifi-
cant topographical and visual resources in close proximity to
coastal resources. They are being set aside as public open space,
and will not be developed for active recreational use. By prohi-
biting development of active parks in the canyon bottom, grading,
large areas, and other activities as described in the Local Coastal
Program (LCP), Chapter 3, Section C, Number 2a and b, the majority
of the natural habitats in this area will be maintained.
The Environmental Sensitive Habitat. Areas (ESHAs) are more fully
described on page 173 of the DEIR: In addition, the LCP provides
additional information on these areas. The jurisdictional
is and
of the Irvine Development Area, Crystal Cove State Park
and the Dedication Areas are depicted on Figure 2.20 page 3 of the
DEIR.
DFG-3 The DEIR cites three studies, Brusca and Zimmerman, 1978, Brusca
and Win, 1978 and California State Water Resources Control Board,
1979c, that address the issue of pollutant sources to the Irvine
Coast Area.
DFG-4 The presence of ecotones were considered in the development of the
RHCP and the mitigation measures and in the determination of signi-
ficance. As indicated in the response to DFG-1, the preservation
of large blocks of habitat with associated ecotonal areas is
preferable to the preservation of small, isolated habitats which
have a reduced amount of ectonal development. In addition, eco-
tonal buffers will be created between ecotic landscaping and coas-
tal sage scrub in compliance with LCP policies I-3-14, I-3-M-4 and
I-3-M-8 (pp 186-187).
DFG-5 See response to comment DFG-1.
a) The expected impacts of development at buildout are presented
in the EIR on pages 179 to 180. In addition to the text
assessment of loss of each habitat type, the figures in the
EIR illustrate the habitat impacts. Figures 4.18 and 4.19
shows the existing habitat types. Figures 2.3 and 3.1 show
•
12-4
L
0
the development and open space areas. The expected impacts of
deve7opment could not be determined based on the level of
detail available. However, as previously stated, most of the
habitat will be lost in the development area with the excep-
tion of most of the riparian habitats. The habitats in the
dedication areas will be prepared from development. This
trade off, or "balancing", was deemed appropriate mitigation
by the Coastal Commission.
b. Given the analysis in the E1R and the extensive assessment
process the project has undergone for the LCP approval, no
further quantification of impacts is necessary.
DFG-6 See response to comment DFG-5. In general terms, all of the wild-
life habitat within the PROJECT development area will be lost or
will undergo some reduction in quality, whereas most of the
wildlife habitat in the dedication areas will be preserved.
• DFG-7 See response to comment DFG-1 and DFG-5. The finding of non -signi-
ficance was based on an evaluation of the overall biological re-
sources of the Irvine Coast Planning Area, the evaluation of im-
pacts and proposed mitigation proceeding from the development and
dedication program, and the findings of the California Coastal
Commission on the Local Coastal Program. Quantification of habitat
losses was not practical given the level of project detail avail-
able and was not deemed useful for purposes of evaluation of signi-
ficance for this project.
DFG-8 No unavoidable adverse impacts to biological resources were identi-
fied and therefore no response was prepared for this section. The
EIR was in error in listing "to be provided" on page 335 and was
corrected through an errata sheet.
DFG-9 Comment acknowledged.
•
12-5
r
considered a potential impact. This does not preclude, however,
the consideration of special fill procedures to enable capping
without destruction. This latter method of filling would probably
not be feasible in areas where buildings would be placed.
The arbitrary distinction of ten feet is somewhat misleading, since
some rough grading may actually require placement of up to fifty
feet of fill over some sites. Sites potentially subject to such
deep burial would also require deep removals prior to placement of
fill material. As such, the question of preservation is unimpor-
tant since the fill process would destroy such sites. In any
regard, the distinction of filling sites in excess of ten feet is
considered operational since future access determines whether a
site can be considered "preserved".
DPR-11 The two previous surveys conducted within the Irvine Coast Planning
Area (Briuer 1977; Douglas and Weil 1981), which included the
• current tract, did not record the historic Japanese truck farming
features. The greatest concentration of early twentieth century
farming activity within the tract occurred around the mouth of Los
Trancos Canyon. Aerial photographs dated 1931 show that the only
farming within the tract occurred on the frontal slopes between Los
Trancos and Muddy Canyons. Aerial photographs dated 1938 show that
the frontal slopes west of Los Trancos Canyons were trenched along
even contours approximately every 20-30 feet in elevation. These
photographs are the best record of these features; any other form
of recordation would be excessive and less accurate. The photo-
graphs are available from the Cartographic and Architectural Branch
of the National Archives and Records Service, Washington D.C.
Whittier College also has important early aerial photographs from
the Fairchild collection which cover portions of the tract.
Considering that the relatively youthful age of these features does
not qualify them for significance, and that they are amply recorded
in existing archives, it was concluded that no further documenta-
tion of them was warranted.
DPR-12 Drainage into the two culverts closest to future Sand Canyon Avenue
will be directed into the two detention basins. Therefore, no
additional detention basins are needed.
6-7
LSd
The issue of further reduction for protection of State Park proper-
ty and resources will be addressed in the refined Master Drainage
and Runoff Plan which will be reviewed by State Parks at the time
it is completed.
•
•
AW
0
11.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the PROJECT to
avoid or lessen to the extent feasible the significant environment effects of
the PROJECT.
LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY
1-1 Offer of Dedication for the Wilderness Dedication Area will be
recorded prior to the issuance of Pelican Hill Road Coastal Devel-
opment Permit and grading permits within development planning areas
(LCP mitigation for physical impact).
1-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the golf courses, the
Riparian Habitat Creation Program shall be submitted for review and
approval to Director, EMA - Harbors, Beaches and'Parks Section.
• 1-3 Contour grading will be used to the maximum extent possible. This
involves rounding and contouring plane edges and varying height and
inclination of manufactured slopes producing a more natural ap-
pearing earthwork.
1-4 All grading will be done in accordance with the County of Orange
Grading Code and the LCP Land Use Plan Grading policies I-3-L-13,
I-3-L-2, I-3-L-31 I-3-4-5, I-3-L-4, I-3-L-6, I-3-L-7, and I-4-D-3e.
1-5 Detailed grading plans (in conformance with established County
procedures) further defining project earthwork requirements will be
developed during subsequent, more detailed levels of planning.
These plans will be subject to the review and approval of the
County of Orange. A geotechnical review of the detailed grading
plans (40 or 80 scale) for the PROJECT will be necessary as re-
quired compliance with LCP Policy I-3-L-1. Additional subsurface
investigation will be conducted during the subsequent planning
levels in order to provide specific design recommendations for the
PROJECT area.
1-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, or at a later date as deemed
appropriate by the Manager, Development Services, the PROJECT
proponent will submit an erosion control plan for approval which
will include a discussion of measures for dust pollution and miti-
gation of erosion caused by wind and water and which will provide
specifically for compliance with LCP policies I-3-I-3 and I-3-I-4
338
The Irvine Company
1988
The Irvine Coast Land Use Plan Amendment.
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
1979
"Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United
States" U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1985a
"Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of
plant
taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice
of
review", Federal Register Vol. 50, No. 188.
1985b
"Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of
verte-
brate wildlife; notice of review." Federal Register Vol.
50 N.
181.
•
377
•
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #485
FOR
THE IRVINE COAST
SCH #88012010
ERRATA SHE
The Errata Sheet consists of a listing of the correction of errors and
the addition of new information in the EIR based on the review of Draft EIR
485. This represents information not included in any other location in the
Draft EIR.
The following sections of the Draft EIR have been revised and/or in-
cluded and are hereby incorporated into the EIR.
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
2.4 PRIOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQA) REVIEWS (Page 5)
3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION, (Page 31)
4.6 BIOLOGY (Pages 181, 188)
4.9 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Page 254, 256-257)
4.10 VISUAL (Page 273)
11.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
13.0 ORGANIZATION AND PERSONS CONSULTED
14.0 REFERENCES
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES CTION PAGE
1.0 SUMMARY........................................................ vii
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................... 1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................ 11
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES ............ 69
4.1 Landform and Topography ................................... 69
4.2 Geology and Soils .................................... 80
4.3 Hydrology ................................................. 109
4.4 Cultural Resources : ............................... ........ 134
4.5 Land Use .................................................. 154
4.6 Biological Resources ...................................... 162
4.7 Air Quality ............................................... 189
• 4.8 Noise ...............................................
4.9 Traffic/Circulation......................:................ 224
4.10 Visual Resources .......................................... 258
4.11 Public Services and Utilities ............................. 274
5.0 ALTERNATIVES................................................... 289
6.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT .............................................. 298
7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................. 299
8.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS .................................... 335
9.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG AND SHORT-TERM
USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...................... 336
10.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE
IMPLEMENTED.................................................... 337
11.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ............................... 338
12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ..............................................
• 13.0 ORGANIZATION AND PERSONS CONSULTED .............................
i
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cant.)
14.0 REFERENCES.....................................................
APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY)
A - Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, Notice of Preparation
Responses
B - Irvine Coast Traffic Studies
C - Irvine Coast Noise Analysis
D - Irvine Coast Air Quality Analysis
E - Biological Assessment
F - Geotechnical Report
G - Visual Analysis
H - 1988 LCP Excerpts - Resource Protection Policies
I - Hydrology Reports
J - Agency Correspondence
• K - Paleontological Report
• ii.
•
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure2.1
-
Location Map ..........................................
3
Figure
2.2 -
Master COP Boundary Map ...............................
Figure
2.3 -
Planned Community Development Map .....................
6
Figure
3.1 -
Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map (Pocket) ..............
15
Figure
3.2 -
Arterial Roadway Master Plan .. .......................
20
Figure
3.3 -
Pelican Hill Road Typical Section .....................
23
Figure
3.4 -
Borrow Site Export Distribution .......................
24
Figure
3.5 -
SJHR Typical Cross Section ............................
26
Figure
3.6 -
Pacific Coast Highway Sections B & C ..................
28
Figure
3.7 -
Proposed Improvements at Los Trancos ..................
30
Figure
3.8 -
Pacific Coast Highway/PA9 .............................
32
33
Figure
3.9 -
Proposed Undercrossing Section ........................
Figure
3.10 -
Typical Section Upper/Lower Loop Roads ................
35
Figure
1.11 -
Typical Section Sand Canyon Avenue ....................
39
•
Figure
3.12 -
Roadway Phasing Plan ..... ...... ..... .............
41
Figure
3.13 -
Domestic Water Distribution System Master Plan ........
43
Figure
3.14 -
6.1 MG Buried Reservoir Plan/Section ..................
45
Figure
3.15 -
3.4 MG Buried Reservoir Plan/Section ..................
46
Figure
3.16 -
2.2 MG Buried Reservoir Plan/Section ..................
47
Figure
3.17 -
Proposed Coast Supply Line Relocation .................
49
Figure
3.18 -
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan ..............
50
Figure
3.19 -
Pacific Coast Highway Wastewater System Map ...........
52
Figure
3.20 -
Master Utility Plan ...................................
54
56
Figure
3.21 -
Existing Hydrology Map ................................
57
Figure
3.22 -
Energy Dissipator Section .........................
Figure
3.23 -
Master Drainage Improvement Plan ......................
58
Figure
3.24 -
Appeal Jurisdiction, Riparian Habitat Creation
Program, Fuel Modification Concept ...................
63
Figure
3.25 -
Section 1, Fuel Modification ..........................
64
Figure
3.26 -
Section 2, Fuel Modification ..........................
65
Figure
3.27 -
Section 3, Fuel Modification ..........................
66
Figure3.28
-
Irvine Coast Open .....................................
68
Figure
4.1 -
Major Landforms
70
Figure
4.2 -
Grading Map for San Joaquin Hills Road ................
72
Figure
4.3 -
Grading Map for Pacific Coast Highway .................
73
Figure
4.4 -
Grading Map for Upper Loop Road .......................
74
Figure
4.5 -
Grading Map for Lower Loop Road ........................
75
Figure
4.6 -
Grading Map for Sand Canyon Avenue ....................
76
•
Figure
4.7 -
Regional Fault Map ....................................
84
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
PAGE
Figure
4.8 -
Geotechnical Constraints And Remedial Measures For
. San Joaquin Hills Road ..............................
95
Figure
4.9 -
Geotechnical Constraints And Remedial Measures For
'Pacific Coast Highway ...............................
97
Figure
4.10 -
Geotechnical Constraints And Remedial Measures For
Upper Loop Road •••••
98
Figure
4.11 -
Geotechnical Constraints And Remedial Measures For
Figure
4.12 -
Lower Loop Road .....................................
Geotechnical Constraints And Remedial Measures For
100
SandCanyon Avenue
_
Figure
4.13 -
...................................103
Major Drainage Areas of Irvine Coast ..................
110
Figure
4.14 -
Local Coastal Program Environmentally Sensitive
HabitatAreas .......................................
112
116
Figure
4.15 -
Pre -development Discharges ............................
•
Figure
4.16 -
Post -development Discharges ...........................
117
Figure
4.17 -
LCP Planning Area - Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 1337 Comparison Map .............................
161
164
Figure
4.18 -
Vegetation Map ......................................
Figure
4.19 -
Coastal Bluff Scrub ..... ... ...............
165
205
Figure
4.20 -
California Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ..........
Figure
4.21 -
Existing CNEL Noise Contours ..........................
208
Figure
4.22 -
Future CNEL Noise Contours 2010 without SJHTC (part 1).
214
Figure
4.23 -
Future CNEL Noise Contours 2010 without SJHTC (part 2).
215
Figure
4.24 -
Future CNEL Noise Contours 2010 with SJHTC (part 1) ...
216
Figure
4.25 -
Future CNEL Noise Contours 2010 with SJHTC (part 2) ...
217
Figure
4.26 -
Circulation System within Study Area ..................
226
Figure
4.27 -
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ...................
227
Figure
4.28 -
1986 Peak Hour Volumes .. .. .. .. .... ...........
228
231
Figure
4.29 -
1986 Traffic Patterns for PCH (ADT Volumes)
Figure
4.30 -
Coastal Area Traffic Zones ............................
236
Figure
4.31 -
Analysis Area Trip Generation ............... ..........
239
Figure
4.32 -
Post-2010 ADT Volumes and Lane Configurations .........
241
Figure
4.33 -
Post-2010 Peak Hour Volumes ...........................
243
247
Figure
4.34 -
Directional Distribution of Project Trips
Figure
4.35 -
Post-2010 ADT Traffic Components ......................
248
Figure
3.36 -
Master Plan of Arterial Highways .....................
250
Figure
3.37 -
Traffic Profile for PCH South of Marguerite ...........
251
Figure
3.38 -
Viewshed Zones ........................................
259
262
Figure
3.39 -
Location of Vantage Points/Cross Sections .............
•
Figure
3.40 -
Cross Sections ........................................
263
iv
•
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
PAGE
Figure3.41
-
Cross Sections ........................................
264
Figure
4.42 -
Cross Sections .................
265
291
Figure
5.1 -
Upper Loop Road Alternative Alignment .................
Figure
5.2 -
Lower Loop Road Alternative Alignment .................
292
Figure
5.3 -
14 Alternative Reservoir Sites .. ... .. .........
293
296
Figure
5.4 -
Discharge Points Eliminated/Modified from LCP ........•.
Figure
5.5 -
Storm Drain Facilities In Golf Course Area ............
297
Figure
7.1 -
Location of Surrounding Projects ......................
312
Figure
7.2 -
Regional Open Space Exhibit ...........................
325
40 v.
•
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table
2.A
- Planned Community Statistical Table ..............
7
Table
3.A
- Lot Acres Within Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 13337 .......
16
Table
3.B
- Consistency Between Vesting "A" Tentative Tract
Map No. 13337 Lots and Certified LCP Planning Areas
18
Table
3.0
- Irvine Coast Arterial Roadway Phasing Summary the
Irvine Coast Master CDP .............................
21
Table
3.D
- Comparison between LCP Planning Areas, CDP Development
Areas, and Vesting "A" Tentative Tract No. 13337 Lots
Table
3.E
- Irvine Coast Arterial Roadway Phasing Summary .........
Table
4.A
- Proposed Grading Parameters ...........................
77
Table
4.8
- General Removal Requirements for Structural Fills......
87
Table
4.0
- Estimated Bulking And Shrinkage Characteristics .......
89
Table
4.D
- Study Area Development Type and Imperviousness ........
122
• Table
4.E.
- Annual Pollutant Load by Major Watershed ..
126
Table
4.F
- Listing of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, within and
near the Irvine Coast Vesting Tentative Tract Map .....
135
Table
4.G
- Paleontological Localities and Rock Unit Sensitivity
for Significant Fossil Occurrences ....................
141
Table
4.H
- Potential Impacts to Archaeological Sites and Data
Recovery Specifications ...............................
145
Table
4.I
- Archaeological Site Significance Assessment Results ..
148
Table
4.J
- Comparison of Master CDP and LCP Planning Areas by Land
Use, Gross Acres, Dwelling Units and Accommodations ..
156
Table
4.K
- Correlation Between LCP Planning Areas, CDP Development
.
Areas, and Vesting "A" Tentative Tract No. 13337 Lots.159
Table
4.L
- AAQS..................................................
191
192
Table
4.M
- Monitoring Data .......................................
Table
4.N
- Irvine Coast LCP Mobile Source Emissions (pound/day)
197
Table
4.0
- Irvine Coast LCP Mobile Source Emissions Analysis
ofSignificance .......................................
198
Table
4.P
- Irvine Coast LCP Amendment Microscale Air
Quality Analysis
200
Table
4.Q
- Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Existing Conditions
207
Table
4.R
- Traffic Distribution Per Time of Day in Percent of ADT.
207
Table
4.S
- Distance to Noise Contours for Existing Traffic
Conditions.........................................
209
Table
4.T
- Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Future Conditions ...
212
•
vi
E
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
PAGE
Table
4.0
- Distance to Noise Contours for Future Conditions ......
213
Table
4.V
- 1986 Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary ........
230
Table
4.W
- 1990 Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary for
InterimConditions ....................................
233
Table
4.X
- Trip Rate Summary - Coastal Area ......................
235
237
Table
4.Y
- Coastal Area and Land Use and Trip Generation .........
Table
4.Z
- Post-2010 Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary
Study Area Circulation System ................. ...
245
268
Table
4.AA
- Coastal Plain Visual Assessment ...... ..............
Table
4.BB
- Coastal Mountain Range Visual Assessment ..............
269
Table
Table
5.A
7.A
- Reservoir Site Alternates .............................
- City Of Irvine Past, Present And Reasonably Anticipated
293
Table
7.B
..................
Future Projects, June 1987 ..........................
- City of Laguna Beach Past, Present And Reasonably
301
•
Anticipated Future Projects, January, 1988 ..........
302
Table
7.0
- City of Newport Beach Past, Present and Reasonably
Anticipated Future Projects - June, 1987 ............
309
Table
7.D
- City of Laguna Beach Past, Present and Reasonably
Anticipated Future Projects - January, 1988 .........
311
0 vii
•
The Planned Community Development Map and Statistical Table are repro-
duced in the EIR as Figure 2.3 and Table 2.A. They provide a comprehensive
overview of The Irvine Coast Planned Community.
2.4 PRIOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) REVIEWS(oaae 5)
Section 15150 of the CEQA guidelines permits an EIR to incorporate by
reference documents or parts of documents that provide relevant data. The
following EIRs or equivalent EIRs have provided CEQA impact analysis, mitiga-
tion assessment, alternatives review, Coastal Act policy analysis and base-
line data for this EIR, and are incorporated by reference:
• Pelican Hill Road EIR #460, certified in November, 1987.
• Irvine Coast LCP, certified in January, 1988, CEQA equivalent docu-
ment.
• Irvine Coast Development Agreement, Final EIR #486, Draft circu-
lated on February 17, 1988.
These documents are available for review at the County of Orange EMA
Coastal and Community Planning, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 238, Santa Ana,
CA 92702-4048.
The following documents were also incorporated by reference in the 1988
LCP:
• EIR #134, certified in August, 1976, analyzed a Land Use Plan (LUP)
with 12,000 residential units and local and commercial, tourist,
recreation, and open space uses.
• EIR #237, certified in December, 1980, addressed a General Plan
Amendment which significantly changed the LUP. The EIR analyzed a
project with 2,000 dwelling units and 160 acres of tourist recrea-
tion/commercial, a significant reduction in project intensity
compared to that which was evaluated in EIR #134.
• Irvine Coast LUP, certified in January, 1982, CEQA equivalent
document.
3 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (Page 31)
Implementation Plan (LCP Appendix 7) The improvements will consist of
asphalt concrete over aggregate base and concrete curb and gutter. Sidewalks
are proposed only along PA 9 and pedestrian crossing will be provided at all
signalized intersections along PCH. Additionally, a Class II Bicycle Trial
will be provided. Traffic signals are proposed at Pelican Hill Road, Sand
Canyon Avenue, Los Trancos parking lot and at Planning Areas 9 and 14 en-
tries. Street lights will be limited to intersections.
4.6^BIOLOGY (Page 181,188)
Local Coastal Program Policies
Within the overall context of the 1988 LCP policies, which will permit
the preservation of large areas of open space, the impacts to the non -sensi-
tive and sensitive biological resources, with the exception of the marine
• terrace habitat, mitigated pursuant to the Crystal Cove Park acquisition and
per the 1982 LUP findings are not considered to be significant. While it is
true the preservation of large areas of habitat does not replace those areas
that are lost, the overall mitigation is achieved through the development and
dedication program which provides for "balancing" of resource protection
(Coastal Act Section 30007.5). The Coastal Commission considers balancing as
acceptable mitigation, because the preservation of large-scale, contiguous
areas of habitat in a natural condition, as contrasted with isolated habitat
areas located within or in close proximity to development areas, creates a
"balance" of impacts favoring the natural environment. In addition, the
guarantee of protection of the habitat as part of public open space is pref-
erable to retention of this area in private ownership, subject to permitted
existing land use such as agriculture and grazing.
The remaining impact not addressed by the 1988 LCP is the loss of the marine
terrace habitat. The 1982 LUP Findings incorporated onto the 1988 LCP ad-
dressed this issue as part of the Crystal Cove Park acquisition and the open
space dedication program offsetting the commitment of PA 9 to developement.
The inclusion of the top of Pelican Hill within the park was considered. The
findings since that time have assumed this area would be developed and the
there would be no preservation of this habitat.
• ix
•
u
4 9 TRAFFIC AND CIRRCULATION (Page 255-256. 257)
It serves as a critical component of the circulation system under a No Cor-
ridor Scenario by providing a key regional bypass around impacted facilities
in Corona Del Mar. Impacts on PCH south of the project area are addressed in
EIR 486 for the Irvine Coast Development Agreement.
MITITGATION MEASURES
As indicated by the above conclusions, buildout of the proposed PROJECT will
not create a significant impact upon the existing circulation system primari-
ly due to the construction of Pelican Hill Road and other significant im-
provements to San Joaquin Hill Road and PCH. Count EMA required mitigation
measures and conditions of approval which would pertain to the subject Vest-
ing "A" Tentative Map are listed below. The -Transportation -System -Management
Plan-miti-gat: on-listed-in-i:he-Air-QuaF t-y-Seet$en-o€-the-EIR-will-reduce-peak
hour -trips.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANE AFTER MITIGATIOM'
Significant adverse impacts will not be created in the study area circulation
system by the proposed PROJECT. Potential impacts on PCH in the City of
Laguna Beach south of the project area, as reviewed in EIR 486, are addressed
in the Findings of Certification for EIR 486 in Exhibit B "Statement of
Overriding Considerations".
On the southerly section of PCH, traffic will continue to grow with the
increase in regional traffic plus some traffic generated by coastal area
development. When the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is completed
(estimated to occur during 1993), additional through traffic will be diverted
from PCH, further reducing volumes on the northerly and the southerly sec-
tions. Environmental Implications of any delay in the construction of SJHTC
in terms of PCH traffic through Laguna Beach are addressed in the EIR 486
Overriding Considerations Findings.
•
4.10 VISUAL (Page 273)
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The PROJECT will not result in any significant adverse visual impacts beyond
those impacts acknowledged by the County and the Coastal Commission in the
Irvine Coast LCP approval which impacts were addressed and mitigated as set
forth in the LCP certification Findings and as further implemented by the
mitigation measures.
171
• xi
•
8.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b), EIRs must include
a discussion describing significant impacts of a project, which cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. This summary briefly lists those
cumulative significant adverse impacts which will result with implementation
of the Irvine Coast.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The PROJECT will not result in any significant adverse impacts beyond
those impacts acknowledged by the County and the Coastal Commission in the
Irvine Coast LCP Approval which impacts were addressed and mitigated as set
forth in the LCP Certification findings and as further implemented by the
mitigation measures set forth below.
• LANDFORM MODIFICATION
Portions of the topography of the PROJECT site will undergo permanent
change through grading operations.
11.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures
avoid or lessen to the extent feasible
the PROJECT Development Agreement.
LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY
are incorporated into the PROJECT to
the significant environment effects of
1-1 Offer of Dedication for the Wilderness Dedication Area will be
recorded prior to the issuance of Pelican Hill Road Coastal Devel-
opment Permit and grading permits within development planning areas
(LCP mitigation for physical impact).
1-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the golf courses, the
Riparian Habitat Creation Program shall be submitted for review and
approval to Director, EMA - Harbors, Beaches and Parks Section.
• 1-3 Contour grading will be used to the maximum extent possible. This
involves rounding and contouring plane edges and varying height and
inclination of manufactured slopes producing a more natural ap-
pearing earthwork.
1-4 All grading will be done in accordance with the County of Orange
Grading Code and the LCP Land Use Plan Grading policies I-3-L-13,
I-3-L-2, I-3-L-3, I-3-4-5, I-3-L-4, I-3-L-6, I-3 4-7, and I-4-D-3e.
1-5 Detailed grading plans (in conformance with established County
procedures) further defining project earthwork requirements will be
developed during subsequent, more detailed levels of planning.
These plans will be subject to the review and approval of the
County of Orange. A geotechnical review of the detailed grading
plans (40 or 80 scale) for the PROJECT will be necessary as re-
quired compliance with LCP Policy I-3-L-1. Additional subsurface
investigation will be conducted during the subsequent planning
levels in order to provide specific design recommendations for the
PROJECT area.
1-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, or at a later date as deemed
appropriate by the Manager,• Development Services, the PROJECT
proponent will submit an erosion control plan for approval which
will include a discussion of measures for dust pollution and miti-
gation of erosion caused by wind and water and which will provide
• specifically for compliance with LCP policies I-3-I-3 and I-3-I-4
338
•
(grading erosion controls measures). The plan will also provide
for effective planting, maintenance, irrigation, and seed germina-
tion by the PROJECT proponent prior to the rainy season in graded
areas which would otherwise remain exposed in accordance with
Subarticle 13 of the Grading and- Excavation Code.
1-7 A legal description for all areas within Planning Areas 11A and 12A
graded for slope stabilization to provide support infrastructure or
any development shall be provided to Harbors, Beaches and Parks/
Program Planning Division. A slope easement shall be retained by
The Irvine Company or its assigns over those areas for FIG=s-as-
sumpti•on-af maintenance and liability.-€ew-them:
GEOLOGY
2-1 Unsuitable materials such as colluvium, alluvium, topsoil, land-
slide debris and artificial fill will be excavated and removed or
• recompacted prior to placement of structural fills. Specific
grading recommendations for removal depths will be determined as
part of future, more detailed geotechnical studies. Site prepara-
tion, excavation and earthwork completion operations will be per-
formed under the observation and testing of a soils engineer.
2-2 Removal of collapsible/compressible material will be required in
all areas of structural fill to minimize settlement potential,
except along Pacific Coast Highway. The additional load of new
fill.placed on the old fill embankment at PCH may induce settlement
along portions of the roadway. Additional subsurface investigation
will be conducted to determine the settlement potential.
2-3 Roadway improvements will be designed to resist expected levels of
groundshaking. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) outlines specific
design requirements for structures based on expected potential
ground acceleration, intended uses, and subsurface soil or bedrock
conditions at the site. Roadways will be designed in accordance
with seismic design provisions established by the California De-
partment of Transportation to promote safety in the event of an
earthquake.
2-4 Stabilization of cut slopes will be performed as necessary as
determined by the soils engineer and in order to comply with LCP
Policy I-3-K-3. It is anticipated that slopes 5a, 8b, 9 and 16 on
• ULR, slopes 20a, 20b, 21, 22, 23, 29, 32 and 33 on LLR, slope 41 on
339
E
PCH, and the cut slope for the System 2 Tank Site will require a
stabilization fill because of the potential for erosion and/or
local popouts along adverse geologic structures. Cut slopes 6 and
8a on ULR, and slopes 26a, 26b and 26c on LLR are anticipated to be
grossly unstable as designed and buttresses will be necessary for
stabilization. All other cut slopes are expected to be stable as
designed. Additional subsurface investigation will be conducted as
necessary, during the final design phase of the PROJECT. All cut
slopes will be mapped by an engineering geologist during grading to
verify the anticipated conditions.
2-5 The adverse impacts to the proposed roadways and developments due
to landslides will be mitigated during grading. Partial or total
removal of unsuitable landslide material will be required prior to
placement of the proposed fill for landslide A on SJHR, landslides
B, C, D and E on ULR, and landslides GG and FF on LLR. Large shear
keys will be necessary to provide stability for the LLR above
• landslides F, H, I, M, N, P, U and T, although the landslides will
not necessarily be stabilized. Remedial grading operations for
these large shear keys will extend into the open space lots. Shear
keys will also be provided for landslides V and W on the LLR, but
these landslides will be stabilized since they occur above the road
ld andslidesHt I,�asubsurface
T,U,Vf investigation
san
will and WontheLLRduringbundertaken thegradifor
grading plan
review stage.
2-6 There is a potential for slope instability of natural slopes where
adverse geologic conditions exist. Two areas with these conditions
have been identified at the site: 1) on the north side of the
northwest segment of LLR and 2) on the north side of Signal Peak on
the north side of ULR. Side hill shear keys will be implemented to
provide stability for the upslope development. Each hillside that
is left as natural, or is below daylight cuts or fills will be
evaluated during the grading plan review. Additional subsurface
investigation may be required in these areas.
2-7 Concentrated runoff will not be allowed to drain into unprotected
natural drainage courses, especially at the toe of landslides or
natural hillsides with adverse bedding conditions. Drainage im-
provements to mitigate erosion in the canyons have been provided in
the Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan, as discussed in
Section 4.3 of this report. A geotechnical study to aid in the
design of the drainage structures is presently underway. The final
is 340
design for these improvements will be reviewed by the geotechnical
engineer.
Runoff will be controlled to avoid saturation of slope materials.
Positive surface drainage will be provided to direct surface water
away from the tops of slopes and natural hillsides, and toward the
streets or other suitable drainage services. Terraces benches with
paved gunite ditches will be provided on the graded cut and fill
slope faces in accordance with the County of Orange Building Codes.
2-8 All canyon bottoms, re-entrants, shear keys, buttresses and stabil-
ization fills will be provided with sub -drains after remedial
removals and prior to placement of fill, in accordance with the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in the Janu-
ary, 1988 report by Leighton and Associates, Inc.
2-9 The four abandoned oil wells will be reabandoned according to
• current D.O.G. standards and requirements.
2-10 If it is determined that sandstones of the Bommer Member and dia-
base bedrock require drilling and blasting to maintain production
in earthwork grading, the oversize material generated will be
placed in deep fills, in accordance with the General Earthwork and
Grading Specifications included in the January, 1988 report by
Leighton and Associates, Inc. Alternative handling of oversize
material includes crushing or disposal off -site.
2-11 Fill materials will be placed and compacted in accordance with the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications provided by Leighton
and Associates, Inc. (January, 1988). Prior to commencement of
grading operations, heavy vegetation concentrations of deleterious
materials will be cleared and disposed of off -site and will comply
with LCP Policy I-3-L-7. Subsequent to removals, fill areas will
be scarified and moisture conditioned prior to placing fill. In
general, all structural fills will be compacted to a minimum of 90%
relative compaction based on ASTM Test method D1557-78. Nonstruc-
tural fills (i.e., a golf course) will be compacted to a minimum of
85% relative compaction.
Expansive soil conditions exist within some of the earth units at
the site. Selective grading procedures may be utilized to remove
the exposed expansive soils.
• 341
2-12
Prior to the Tentative Tract Map for site -specific development, the
PROJECT proponent will submit soils engineering and geologic (if
appropriate due to slope conditions) studies to the Manager, Devel-
opment Services for approval which will comply with LCP Policy I-3-
L-1. These reports will primarily involve assessment of potential
soil related constraints and hazards such as slope instability,
settlement, liquefaction, or related secondary seismic impacts
where determined to be appropriate by the Manager, Development
Services. The report will include evaluation of potentially expan-
sive soil and recommended construction procedures and/or design
criteria to minimize their effect of these soils on the proposed
development. All reports will recommend appropriate mitigation
measures and be completed in the manner specified in the Orange
County Grading Manual and State Subdivision Map Act and County
Subdivision Ordinance.
2-13
The non-structural fills (golf course) will be compacted to a mini-
.
mum 85Y relative compaction, subject to request and approval of
•
compaction wavier of code -specified 90Y relative compaction re-
quirement.
HYDROLOGY
3-1
Erosion and sedimentation control devices will be installed during
construction to protect the channels and prevent excessive sediment
loading in storm runoff, mitigate impacts to Areas of Special
Biological Significance.
3-2
Sandbags will be placed across streets where necessary, depending
upon size of catchment and sediment yield.
3-3
For each phase of the PROJECT development, sedimentation and ero-
sion control design plans consistent with LCP policies I-3-I-1, I-
3-I-2, I-3-J-21 I-3-J-32 I-3-J-41 I-3-J-5, I-3-D-1C, and I-3-J-2
will be prepared. These plans will be submitted to the Manager,
Subdivision Division, prior to issuance of each project grading
permit. These plans, which must be consistent with the required
refined Runoff Management Plan, would cover the following:
•
Drainage Protection and Control Measures
- Rate of runoff during and after the proposed development;
- Location of natural and manmade drainage ways;
•
342
E
- Drainage size above cut and fill slopes;
Proposed methods to reduce erosion;
- Methods used to control runoff across cut and fill slopes
and graded areas during and after the proposed develop-
ment.
• Sediment Trap Basins
- Location and dimensions of the sediment trap basins which
would serve as detention basins after construction;
- Hydrologic analysis and estimates of sediment trap para-
meters used in the design;
- The type and manner of slope stabilization.
• Fill Slopes
- Location, slope and height of fill area;
• - Slope and condition of original ground;
Number and dimensions of benches and terraces;
- Sources of fill material and suitability to support
vegetation;
- Maximum fill thickness layers to be compacted, percent
compaction and methods of slope protection.
• Cut Slopes
- Location, slope and height of cut area;
- Number and width of drainage terraces;
- Ability of ground to support vegetation.
• Disposal of Spoil Material
- Type of soil material;
- Disposal location;
- Stabilization of spoil and erosion control.
Stockpile
- Source of material;
- Location, slope, height and duration of stockpile;
- Stabilization of stockpile.
• 343
3-4 Storm drains as illustrated in the MDRMP will be implemented to
convey runoff to well-defined channels. The design of pipes and
supporting geotechnical information for proper release point design
will be addressed in the required refined Runoff Management Plan in
compliance with LCP Policy I-3-K-59 I-3-K-1, I-3-K-2, I-3-K-4, I-3-
K-6, I-4-B-5, and I-4-f-7.
3-5 Energy dissipators and riprap lining (rock) will be constructed at
the outlet of storm drains to reduce the velocity of flow and
prevent excessive downstream erosion.
3-6 Detention basins, as described in the MDRMP, or comparable facili-
ties will be implemented with development of residential, tourist -
commercial or golf course uses to reduce peak discharge in balance
with the reduction of sediment yield.
3-7 Sediment traps will be provided during construction downstream of
• construction areas and at the discharge points into natural drain-
age courses. This may be accomplished through the conversion of
detention basins or comparable facilities.
3-12 Consistent with LCP Policy I-3-E, a water quality monitoring pro-
gram will be implemented in the golf courses as provided for in the
MDRMP, and as summarized below pursuant to the Land Use Plan Cate-
gory "C" Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Policies. This
monitoring program will be implemented upon completion of golf
course construction. Prior to construction of the golf courses,
storm water runoff samples will be taken at the drainages passing
under Pacific Coast Highway to establish baseline data for com-
parison with samples taken after construction.
Site specific mitigation measures relating to runoff and water
quality from the golf courses will be provided with the golf course
Coastal Development Permit.
3-13 Water quality sample data will be submitted to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County EMA.
3-14 All streets and parking lots will be vacuum swept on a regular
basis.
3-15 All general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, les-
sees, and property owners within the Irvine Coast Planned Community
•
344
•
will be notified that dumping of chemicals into the storm drain
system or the watershed is prohibited.
3-16 Prior to the recordation of the first map (either for conveyance of
development) or prior to the issuance of any grading permit (which-
ever occurs first), the developer shall prepare a Refined Master
Drainage and Runoff Management Plan, based on the Master Drainage
and Runoff Management Plan for Irvine Coast Planning Area, that
includes details of the locations and sizes of retention basins,
and other drainage devices, in a manner meeting the approval of the
Manager, Flood Program Division.
3-17 Prior to the recordation of the applicable final map (for con-
veyance or development) or prior to the issuance of a grading
permit (whichever occurs first) the developer shall design and
construct all necessary master infrastructure improvements iden-
tified in the Refined Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan
• and provide necessary dedications, all in a manner meeting the
approval of the Manager; Subdivision Division, (if work is accom-
plished with developer funds} -or Manager, Design Division, if work
is accomplished as a County Assessment District.
3-18 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the PROJECT proponent
shall submit to the Manager, Subdivision Division, for review and
approval an erosion control program which indicates that proper
control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants will be
implemented as required in the Orange County Grading Code and
Grading Manual and LCP Policies I-3-L-2 and I-2-A-4.
3-19 Prior to the recordation of the final tract/parcel map, or prior to
the issuance of any grading permit, whichever comes first, and if
determined necessary by the Manager, Subdivision Division, a letter
of consent, in a form suitable for recording, shall be obtained
from the downstream property owners permitting drainage diversions
and/or unnatural concentrations.
3-20 The location and size of the proposed energy dissipators shall be
adequate to prevent mitigate scarwi•ng scouring and erosion within
the canyons of Planning Areas 11A and 12A and in a manner meeting
the approval of the Director, EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
• 345
•
4-1 The mitigation of potential direct impacts to the prehistoric
archaeological and paleontological sites affected by the PROJECT
and subsequent projects will include LCP policies I-3-C-2bs, I-3-G-
2, I-3-G-3, and I-3-H-2 and the following:
Avoidance through site planning and final design:
- Of the 34 sites potential impacted within the PROJECT area,
five (15% are avoided).
- Because site locations were surveyed by standard civil en-
gineering techniques, limits of avoidance can be accomplished
during site planning and final design.
- Maintaining five feet of separation from excavations is ade-
quate avoidance.
• • Preservation by capping (up to 10 feet of fill).
• Excavation for data recovery:
- Excavation techniques should focus on data requirements to
answer specific research questions.
- Rockshelters will be totally excavated unless avoided;
- Housefloors, cemeteries, processing areas, and other special-
ized activities, where present, should be used to focus data
recovery excavations;
- Data recovery excavations will contain numerous small con-
tiguous units;
- All directly impacted cemeteries and burials will be com-
pletely removed for reburial in accordance with State Law and
existing contractual arrangements between The Irvine Company
and Native American descendants;
4-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a County certified
archaeologist will be retained by the applicant to perform a sub-
surface test level investigation and surface collection as ap-
propriate and as required by LCP policies I-3-G-1 and I-3-G-2. The
test level report evaluating the site will include discussion of
.
346
•
significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resour-
ces), final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. Ex-
cavated finds will be offered to County of Orange, or designee, on
a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if writtem
assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in
Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a
museum in Orange County indicates desire to study and/or display
them at this time. In this case items will be donated to County,
or designee. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and based
on the report recommendations and County policy, final mitigation
will be carried out based upon a determination as to the site's
disposition by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks Program
Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are not
limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation
necessary.
4-3 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the PROJECT applicant will
provide written ev.idence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading
Section that a County certified archaeologist has been retained to
conduct salvage excavation of the archaeological resources in the
permit area in compliance with LCP policy I-3-G-3. Excavated finds
will be offered to County of Orange, or designee, on a first refus-
al basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is
provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in
Orange County indicates desire to study and/or display them at this
time. In this case items shall be donated to County, or designee.
A final report of the salvage operation will be donated to County,
or designee. A final report of the salvage operation will be
submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks Program Planning Division prior to any grading in the ar-
chaeological site areas.
4-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the PROJECT applicant will
provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading
Section that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained,
will be present at the pre -grading conference, will establish, in
cooperation with the PROJECT developer, procedures for temporarily
halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification,
and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate in accordance with
LCP policy I-3-G-4. If additional or unexpected archaeological
features are discovered, the archaeologist will report such find-
ings to the•PROJECT developer and to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches
347
•
and Parks Program Planning Division. If the archaeological resour-
ces are found to be significant, the archaeological observer will
determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the PROJECT
developer, for exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall
be offered to County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal
basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is
provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in
Orange County indicates desire to study and/or display them at this
time. In this case items shall be donated to County, or designee.
These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the
resources, will be subject to the approval of the Manger, Harbors,
Beaches and Parks and Program Planning Division.
4-5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the PROJECT applicant
will provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading
Section that a County certified Paleontologist has been retained to
• observe grading activities and salvage fossils -as necessary in
accordance with LCP policies I-3-H-1 and I-3-H-3. The paleon-
tologist will be present at the pre -grading conference, will es-
tablish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and
will establish, in cooperation with the PROJECT developer, proced-
ures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit samp-
ling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils.
If major paleontological resources are discovered which require
long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist
will report such finds to the PROJECT developer and to the Manager,
Harbors, Beaches and Parks Program Planning Division in compliance
with I-3-H-3. The paleontologist will determine appropriate ac-
tions, in cooperation with the PROJECT developer, which ensure
proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds will be offered
to County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Ap-
plicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that
they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds
are of special significance, or if a museum in Orange County indi-
cates desire to study and/or display them at this time. In this
case items will be donated to County, or designee. These actions
as. well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources will
be subject to approval by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks
Program Planning Division, which will include the period of inspec-
tion, an analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of
• the fossils.
348
•
LAND USE
No mitigation measures are required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
6-1 The amount of vegetation removed during construction will be kept
to the minimum possible. During construction, shrub vegetation
adjoining areas being graded will be crushed, rather than removed,
because many shrubs species sped•€i•es will resprout from the base
so long as they are not uprooted. The PROJECT will comply with LCP
Policies I-3-I-2 and I-3-J-2.
6-2 The alteration of any stream courses, including ESHA Category A, B
and D, may require the application for a 1601 and 1603 Agreements
from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Consul-
tation with the Department CDFG must take place prior to any pro-
posed work in these areas. In addition, the 1988 LCP, one-e€-the
eendimti•ees-af--appreva4 requires review of the Riparian Habitat
Creation Program (RHCP) by the CDFG and, if appropriate, approval
through a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600
et seq. of the Fish and Game Code.
6-3 Offer of Dedication of Wilderness Open Space Area will be recorded
prior to the issuance of the Master Coastal Development Permit in
accordance with LCP policies I-3-A-2, I-3-C-2, I-3-A-2a, I-3-A-2b
and I-3-F. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections A
through C, Appendix H, for a description of the dedication areas
and the policies for those areas.
6-4 Management Unit No. 1 will be transferred to the County only after
the rough grading permit issuance for Planning Areas 8 and 2B as
required for compliance with LCP policies I-3-A-1, I-3-C-2 and I-3-
A-2. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections A through
C, Appendix H, for a description of the dedication areas and the
policies for those areas.
6-5 Los Trancos,Canyon and Buck Gully will be dedicated to the County
with recordation of the abutting first final development map, as
required for compliance with LCP policy I-3-C-2. Refer to Part I,
Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections A through C, (EIR 485 Appendix
H), for a description of the dedication areas and the policies for
those areas.
-349
6-6 The Riparian Habitat Creation Program (RHCP) will be prepared in
compliance with LCP policies I-2-A-3, I-4-B-5, I-3-F and I-2-A-3,
and will be approved by the Manager, Open Space/Recreation/CSA Pro-
gram Office, Environmental Management Agency (EMA) of Orange
County. Approval is prior to the issuance of the Golf Course
Coastal Development Permit. As a condition of approval, the RHCP
will be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), and, if appropriate, approved through a Streambed Altera-
tion Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and
Game Code. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 4, Section B,
Appendix H, for a description of the Golf Course policies.
6-7 A Water Quality Monitoring Program will be approved by the Chief,
Environmental Resources Section, EMA, prior to the issuance of the
Golf Course Development Permit as required by LCP policy, I-3-E.
Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 4, Section B, Appendix H,
for a description of the Golf Course policies.
• 6-8 Energy dissipators will be provided at the end of each storm drain
discharging into a natural drainage course. Peak storm discharge
rates of in major streams will be allowed to RGt-exeeed-the--peak
rates -under -natural -eenditiens.--An increase of not more than over
ten percent than the natural flow ies allowed if there is no sig-
nificant affect on the natural erosion/beach sand replenishment
process. Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Sections I, J
and K in Appendix H.
6-9 Erosion control plans will be approved by the Chief, Grading Sec-
tion, EMA prior to the issuance of grading_ permits in compliance
with LCP policies I-3-D-I, I-3-J2 I-3-K, I-3-L. Erosion control
facilities will be in place prior to or concurrent with measurable
precipitation. Soil control facilities will remain in place and
operable during the rainy season, October 15 to April 15. Refer to
Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section I in EIR 485 Appendix H.
6-10 Landscape plans for all graded stone areas will be submitted for
review and approvaed by the Manager, EMA Development Services Divi-
sion, prior to the issuance of grading permits. Refer to Part I,
Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section L in EIR 485 Appendix H.
6-11 An ecotonal buffer will be used at the interface between exotic
landscaping and coastal sage scrub in compliance with LCP policies
• I-3-M, I-3-M-4 and I-3-M-8. This buffer will be shown on all
350
•
landscape plans. The establishment and maintenance of the ecotonal
areas will conform to the requirements of the County of Orange Fire
Marshall and LCP policies I-3-M-5, I-3-M-6, I-3-M-7 and I-3-M-8.
Refer to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 31 Sections L and M in
Appendix H.
6-12 All graded slopes will be stabilized and revegetated with native
plants species where they are within future existing public open
space areas. Non-invasive, non-native plant species can be used if
approved by a qualified botanist. Revegetation will take place as
soon as is practical after grading is complete in compliance with
LCP policies I-3-I, I-3-J, I-3-K, I-3-L. Irrigation will be ap-
plied where necessary or required to establish vegetation. Refer
to Part I, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3, Section L in EIR 485 Appendix
H.
6-13 Vegetation may be removed in the construction and maintenance of
• proposed drainage, erosion control and related facilities. Vegeta-
tion removal will be limited to the least required to construct and
maintain such facilities (in compliance with LCP policies I-3-I-2,
I-3-J-2, I-3-I, I-3-J, I-3-K and I-3-L) and shall be undertaken, to
the extent feasible, in areas involving the least adverse impact to
riparian vegetation. Where,feasible, drainage, erosion control and
related facilities have been located outside areas containing
riparian vegetation.
6-14 Proposed drainage, erosion control and related facilities involve
the least physical alteration to natural drainage course required
to construct and maintain such facilities, and to the extent feas-
ible involve the least adverse impact to the drainage courses.
Where feasible, drainage, erosion control and related facilities
have been located outside drainage courses as required for com-
pliance with LCP policies I-3-D, I-4-F-79 I-3-D-11 I-341 I-4-B5
and I-3-F-3.
6-15 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or at a later date as deemed
appropriate by the Manager, Development Services, the PROJECT
proponent shall submit an erosion control plan for his approval
which shall include a discussion of measures for dust pollution and
mitigation of erosion caused by wind and water. The plan shall
also provide for effective planting maintenance, irrigation and
seed germination by the PROJECT proponent prior to the rainy season
• 351
•
in graded areas which would otherwise remain exposed in accordance
with Subarticle 13 of the Grading and Excavation Code.
AIR QUALITY
7-1 Dust suppression measures required by AQMD Rule 403, such as regu-
lar watering and early paving of the road will be implemented to
reduce emissions during construction and grading.
7-2 A Transportation System Management (TSM) plan will be initiated as
required by the 1988 LCP, upon completion of the first phase of
commercial development and will include the following components:
a. Bus services will be provided to regional activity centers
within the County for hotel visitors.
b. Bicycle paths will be provided in the design of roadways and
open space areas.
• c. Shuttle services will be provided to local activity centers
include Laguna Beach and Newport Beach and the City and State
• beaches during the summer peak period.
NOISE
d. Pedestrian access to beach amenities will be facilitated via
construction of at -grade crosswalks at signalized intersec-
t i ons -or -elevated-cress$ngs .
e. Major employers with more than one hundred employees will
develop ride -share or public transit incentive programs for
their employees.
f. Bus shelters, benches and bus pockets will be provided near
the proposed project.
7-3 Parking structures will be ventilated, in conformance with the
Uniform Building Code standards, to reduce vehicle emission levels
within the facility.
8-1 County of Orange Ordinances which limit the hours of construction
will be followed by all individual development projects.
• 352
•
8-2 Mitigation measures will be undertaken to reduce the exterior noise
to acceptable levels at residential buildings, including hotels,
that are located within the 65 CNEL contours. Potential measures
include building setbacks, noise barriers or orientation of build-
ings to acts as barriers. Design and construction of a noise
barrier (wall, berm or combination wall/berm) is the most common
way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The interception of the
noise wall into the line of sight between the noise source and the
planned residential properties will be designed to. achieve the
maximum amount of sound attenuation possible.
8-3 The interior noise level standard of 45 CNEL for residential units
will be implemented through measures specified at the time of
building permit application. The specific types of measures may
include increases in window thickness, reduction of window area,
and/or location of attic vents away from roadways. Architectural
• plans will be reviewed at the time of building permit application
to ensure that the interior noise level standard of 45 CNEL is not
exceeded. Required noise mitigation measures will also depend upon
the strategies selected for exterior noise reduction, as discussed
in the above measure.
8-4 As part of the building permit process, the individual developers
must provide a "summer switch" on central HVAC air conditioning
systems to provide adequate ventilation with the windows closed in
residential units if the interior noise level requirement of 45
CNEL cannot be met with the windows open.
8-5 All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated
against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all
noise impacting the PROJECT, so as not to exceed an exterior stan-
dard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard
of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared under the
supervision of a County certified acoustical consultant stating
that these standards will be satisfied .in a manner consistent with
applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted as follows:
a. Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior
to the issuance of grading permits, at the sole discretion of
the County, an acoustical analysis report shall be submitted
to the Manager, Development Services Division, for approval.
The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise en-
vironment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical
353
•
b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical
analysis report describing the acoustical design features of
the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior
noise standards shall be submitted to the Manager, Development
Services Division, for approval along with satisfactory
evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures
specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been
incorporated into the design of the PROJECT.
C. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all freestand-
ing acoustical barriers must be shown on the PROJECT's plot
plan illustrating height, location and construction in a
manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Development Ser-
vices Division.
d. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occup-
ancy, field testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations
may be required by the Manager, Building Inspection Division,
to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards.
8-6 All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against
the combined impact of all present and projected noise from ex-
terior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specif-
ied in the Noise Element and Land Use/Noise Compatibility Manual.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence prepared
under the supervision of the County certified acoustical consultant
that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with
applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted to the Manager,
Development Services Division in the form of an Acoustical Analysis
Report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the
acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise
standard and which indicate that the sound attenuation measures
specified have been incorporated into the design of the PROJECT.
8-7 Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits, an Acoustical Analy-
sis Report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the
noise generation potential of the proposed project and proposed
attenuation measures to assure compliance with Orange County Codi-
fied Ordinance, Division 6 (Noise Control). The report shall be
prepared under the supervision of a County certified acoustical
consultant and submitted to the Manager, Development Services
• Division, for review and approval. The approved attenuation fea-
355
tures shall be incorporated into the plans and specifications of
the PROJECT.
8-8 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permits, the PROJECT proponent
will produce evidence acceptable to the Manager, Development Ser-
vices, that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile,
operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling will be equipped with
properly operating and maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Or-
dinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas will be located as
far as practicable from dwellings.
• 8-9 Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel map, the
owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this
tentative tract/parcel map shall prepare and record a notice that
this property may be subject to impacts from the proposed Transpor-
tation Corridor in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
Development Services Division.
8-10 Prior to the issuance of the Certificates of Use and Occupancy, the
developer shall produce evidence to the Manager, Development Ser-
vices Division, that the Department of Real Estate has been noti-
fied that the PROJECT area is adjacent to a regional transportation
corridor which is shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arter-
ial Highways and which will pass along the side• of (2,400 feet
northeasterly from) the subdivision (Tentative Tract 13337
project). The corridor is expected to be a high capacity, high-
speed, limited access facility for motor vehicles, and will have
provisions for bus lanes and other mass transit type facilities.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
9-1 Prior to recordation of the Final Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map,
vehicular access rights to all of the arterial highways will be
offered for dedication to the County of Orange except for access
locations approved by the County of Orange, and notes to this
effect will be lettered on the final map and approved by the Direc-
• 356
•
tor, Transportation and the Director of Public works in compliance
with LCP Policy 1-4-E-4.
9-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, adequate sight dis-
tance will be provided at all intersections per Standard Plan 117
in a manner approved by the Manager, Subdivision Division. This
includes any necessary revisions to the plan such as removing
slopes or other encroachments from the limited use area.
9-3 The PROJECT shall comply with LCP policies 1-2-B-41 1-3-D-1a, 1-3-
D-1c, 1-3-D-1d, 1-3-F-3, 1-4-E, 1-4-E-11 1-4-E-2, 1-4-E-3, 1-4-E-5,
14-E-7, 1-4-E-9, 14-E-10, 1-4-E-14, 1-4-E-15, 1-4-E-16, 1-4-E-
19A, 1-4-E-20, 1-4-E-21, 1-4-E-22, 1-4-E-23 and 1-3-C-2b6 which
address roadway consistency with circulation plans, landform al-
teration, drainage modification, revegetation, -design/construction,
criteria phasing, access criteria and landscaping.
• VISUAL RESOURCES
10-1 A71 slopes created by the construction of public roadways which
will be dedicated or irrevocably offered to the County in fee or
easement for landscape maintenance purposes, shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, improved in accordance with a plan, and
processed as stated below:
Preliminary Plan - Prior to recordation of any final tract/parcel
map or prior to issuance of any building permits, whichever comes
first, an agreement shall be entered into and financial security
posted guaranteeing the landscape improvements and the maintenance
thereof. Said agreement and security shall be based on a prelimi-
nary landscape plan showing major plant material and uses, with a
cost estimate for the landscape improvements. The preliminary plan
and cost estimate shall be reviewed and, approved by the Manager,
Subdivision Division. Said plan shall take into account the EMA
Standard Plans for landscaped areas, adopted plant palette guides,
1988 LCP Policies 1-4-E-15 and I-4-E-16 and PCH Scenic Highway
Plan.
Detailed Plan - Prior to issuance of any building permit(s), a
detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
0 357
•
Manager, Subdivision Division. Detailed plans shall show the
detailed irrigation and landscaping design.
Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final cer-
tificates of use and occupancy and the release of the financial
security guaranteeing the landscape improvements, said improvement
shall be installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape
architect as having been installed in accordance with the approved
detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing
to the Manager, Construction Division.
10-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent will
provide evidence to the Director of Regulation, EMA, which indi-
cates that graded areas will be compatible with natural landform
characteristics and which in compliance with LCP policy 1-3-D-la.
Criteria to achieve the desired effect may include:
. a. Recontouring the existing landforms to provide a smooth and
gradual transition between graded slopes and existing grade
while preserving the basic topographic character of the exist-
ing site.
b. Variation and combination of slopes 2:11 3:1, and 4:1 to
create a more natural character wherever possible with the
graded areas..
C. Balancing between cut and fill within the overall area to
eliminate an off -site and import/export situation.
d. Obscuring slope drainage structures with a variety of plant
materials.
e. Preservation of visual opportunities from hillsides by pro-
viding for panoramic views from selected locations such as
view corridors and sensitive landscape placement.
10-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, landscape plans for land-
scape areas which will be maintained privately shall be prepared by
a licensed landscape architect as taking into account approved
preliminary landscape plan (if any), EMA Standard Plans, adopted
planned community regulations, scenic corridor and specific plan
requirements, Grading Code, recreation trail and erosion control
• requirements, Subdivision Code, Zoning code, and conditions of
358
•
10-4 Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, applicant
shall install said landscaping and irrigation system and shall have
a licensed landscape architect verify that the landscaping and
irrigation system was installed in accordance with the approved
plan. Applicant shall furnish said verification in writing to the
Manager, Building Inspection Division.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
11-1 This project shall be required to pay fees for sheriff substation
facilities in the event an applicable fee program is established by
the Board of Supervisors. If such a fee program is established,
prior to any final map recordation the project proponent shall
enter into an agreement to participate on a pro rata basis in
funding capital improvements necessary to establish permanent sher-
iff substation facilities to serve this project and other area
• acquisition, construction and equipment. Said agreement shall be
accompanied by financial security. Fees will be established by
applicable fee program but shall not exceed $5O.00 per dwelling
unit and $4.00 per one hundred square feet of non-residential
development. Specific compliance with this condition may be re-
fined or implemented through a development agreement.
11-2 Fuel modification will be provided within development planning
areas except along Planning Areas 9, 8 and 2C. Planning Area 9
will provide'a portion of the fuel modification within Crystal Cove
State Park in accordance with State Park standards. Planning Areas
8 and 2C will meet fuel modification needs outside the coastal zone
on adjoining Irvine Company land. Fuel modification plans will be
submitted to County Fire Department with each development applica-
tions including combustable structures.
11-3•IRWD will design and build adequate water storage capacity in three
reservoirs plus back-up pumps at PCH and the 3.4 MG reservoir to
meet County fire flow requirements. These systems will be complete
and operable prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, except for
temporary construction or home sales facilities.
11-4 Prior to the recordation of the first development subdivision map
covering lands inland of Pacific Coast Highway which results in the
• creation of one or more building sites, the COUNTY and OWNER shall
360
enter into a Implementation Agreement, in COUNTY'S customary form
to provide for the construction of Fire Facility No. 52 in ac-
cordance with County's Development Fire Program for Fire Stations
and Branch Libraries dated December, 1987.
11-5 If a future annexation of the PROJECT area to the City of Newport
Beach occurs, an evaluation will be done to determine the need for
any additional facilities to meet the cities' requirements.
11-6 The PROJECT will incorporate where applicable the following County
of Orange Fire Department and --the--C4ty--of -44ewpo-rt-Beac*4ire
Department fire protection measures:
- Built in fire protection such as fire sprinkler systems
- Street widths (minimum 32' width on private streets, parking
one side)
- Cul-de-sac turning radius (minimum 401)
• _ Access gates (minimum 14' with Knox control switches)
Hydrant spacing and location (400' residential, 300' commer-
cial)
- Jones wet barrel fire hydrants. The model #J3765 is required
in commercial and high density areas
- Water main size (minimum 8")
- Roof coverings (minimum class "C")
- Maximum length of dead end streets shall not exceed (500') un-
less approved by County Fire Marshall
- Vegetation control
- Minimum fire flow: Residential 2500 GPM, Commercial 5000.GPM.
11-7 The PROJECT will provide where applicable Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict recommended water conservation measures and construction
management direction:
- Water conservation features such as low water use fixtures
- Drought tolerant landscaping
- Water and wastewater maintenance easements provided in layout
of roads and lots
- Coordination of timing of road construction and water and
sewer facilities to the maximum extent possible.
11-8 The PROJECT will incorporate in road design the following Orange
County Transit District (OCTD) design parameters:
0 361
•
All the existing stops should be retained, and passenger
amenities such as bus shelters and paved, lighted and handi-
capped accessible pedestrian walkways should be provided
between the bus stops and various project buildings.
Bus turnouts, consistent with the District's Design Guidelines
for Bus Facilities, should be provided at existing stops, and
those identified in the future.
11-9 The PROJECT shall comply with LCP policies I-3-C-265,
4-F-11 I-4-F-2, I-4-F-3, I-44-5 and I-44-7 which
structure facilities needed, concept plans, desig
location.
is 362
n
I-3-C-2662 I -
address infra -
criteria and
�J
11-10 Necessary above ground public works, infrastructure, and utility
facilities will be located and designed to minimize visual impacts.
11-11 All necessary water service improvements, including pipelines,
booster stations, and other facilities will be designed in con-
junction with the final tract maps.
11-12 The water system will be designed to provide adequate fire flows.
Water reservoirs will be buried underground.
11-13 All necessary sewer service improvements, including pipelines, pump
stations, and other facilities will be designed in conjunction with
final tract maps.
11-14 All necessary drainage improvements, including storm drains, deten-
tion basins within drainage courses, and other facilities will be
designed in conjunction with final tract maps.
• 11-15 Prior to recordation of the first development tract/parcel map, the
PROJECT proponent will submit water improvement plans to be ap-
proved by the Manager, Fire Services for fire protection purposes
and to comply with LCP policies I-4-F-3 and I-3-M-10. The adequacy
and reliability of water system design, location of valves, and
distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated in accordance with
Insurance Services Office suggested standards contained in the Fire
Suppressing Rating Schedule.' A financial security will be posted
for the installation, if required.
11-16 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction
and to comply with LCP policy I-4-F-4, the PROJECT proponent will
submit evidence of to the Manager, Fire Services that a water
supply for fire protection is available.
11-17 Prior to issuance of building permits, the PROJECT proponent will
provide a site plan showing building locations and private drive
arrangements for approval by the Manager, Fire Services on any
portion of the subdivision map served by private streets not previ-
ously depicted.
11-18 Prior to recordation of each development tract/parcel map, the
PROJECT proponent will submit a construction phasing plan for
approval by the Manager, Fire Services. The purpose of this review
• 363
is to evaluate the adequacy of emergency vehicle access for the
number of dwelling units served.
11-19 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Development of area
adjacent to planning area 11A and 12A in order to comply with LCP
policies I-3-M-5, I-3-M-6, I-3-M-7 and I-3-M-9, the PROJECT propon-
ent will submit a fuel modification plan and program for approval
by the Manager, Fire Services in consultation with the Director,
Parks and Recreation. The plan will show the special treatment to
achieve an acceptable level of risk in regard to the exposure of
structures to flammable vegetation and will address the method of
removal and installation (mechanical or hand labor) and provisions
for its continuous maintenance. The fuel modification plan will
identify appropriate methods to reduce impacts on biological re-
source values or on visually sensitive areas. Areas of particular-
ly high biological or scenic value may require alteration of devel-
opment design or special treatment of fuel modification as the
• appropriate method of reducing fire hazard. The approved fuel
modifidation plan will be installed under the supervision of •the
Manager, Fire Services and completed prior to the issuance of
applicable Certificates of Use and occupancy.
11-20 Prior to recordation of each development tract/parcel map, the
PROJECT 'proponent will file a Notice with the .Department of Real
Estate meeting the approval of the Manager, Fire Services that
certifies that potential property owners within the boundaries of
the map are aware that the property is in a high extreme fire
hazard area due to wildland exposure.
11-21 Prior to recordation of each tract/parcel map , the PROJECT propon-
ent will offer an irrevocable fire protection access easement as
required by the Manager, Fire Services for any private roadways
within the development. The easement will be continuous with the
travelway for the private drives as shown on the approved use
permit, and will be dedicated to the County of Orange. The CC&R's
will contain provisions which prohibit obstructions within the fire
protection access easement and also require Manager, Fire Services
approval of any modifications such as speed bumps, control gates,
or changes in parking plans within said easements.
11-22 Prior to recordation of each tract/parcel map , the PROJECT propo-
nent will submit construction details for any controlled entry
• access for approval by the Manager, Fire Services. These details
364
•
shall include width, clear height, and means of emergency vehicle
override.
11-23 Sewer lines, connections, and structures will be of the type, and
installed in the location as specified in "Guidelines Requiring
Separation Between Water Mains and Sanitary Sewers, Orange County
Health Department, 198011, in a manner meeting the approval of the
Manager, Environmental Health and in compliance with LCP policies
I-4-F-6 and I-4-B-13.
----11-24 Primer -to--the -reeordet4on--Gf-each--final -devel"ment--traet/pareel
map; - the- -f01vAiit-(publ4q/-pri-Ovate}-imprevements-wiaa--be-designed
and-eonsi;ruei;ed -i•n -accordance-wi•i;h -plans -and -sped•€i•c ai; ions -meei; i•ng
i;he-approwa}-o€-i:he-Manager;-Subdi•wi-soon-Di•wi•si•en:
-----a: ---Street-names;-s4gns;-stri•pi•ng=and-stenei*l-Mg:
• b: The -water- c isti ftution--system-and - appurtenances- *11+-Ir—
will -also- eonferm- 4-0--apoic-alr}e -laws -and- adapted---- ----
regulations-enfereed- by- the- -County--F-i-re-CN-ef--and -Gounty
c: Publi•e-street ;-pr4vate--st-reet,--i*"0vewmt-s-;-s-idew&lIk&--
under9i-otmd--in ll!ties---E4ne4*6i-ng---eleetr4eal---and
telephone}; -.street- -}i•ghi;s; Arai•ls-and -mai•lbexes: ---
• 365
•
12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
Preparers
LSA
Contributors
Paul H. Dunholter, P.E.
Mestre GreVe Associates
Hans Giroux
Terry Wright
• . 366
Carollyn Lobell
Amy Rudell
Bill Mayer
Deborah Baer
Angie Egli
Jill Wilson
Trisha Lord
Karen Kirtland
Mike Laybourn
Gary Dow
Cheryl Pelly
Noise
Air Quality
Leighton & Associates
ILI
13 0 LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS CONSULTED
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Newport Beach Public Library
County of Orange
Fire Department
Police Department
General Services Agency
Coastal and Community Planning
Public Library
Park and Recreation Department
Forecast and Analysis Department
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
Police Department
Fire Department
Utilities Department
Parks and Recreation Department
General Services Agency
Department of Public Works
Department of Engineering
Orange County Public Library
367
Ward Erickson
L.F. Hurlbutt
Helen Spenser
Gene Hutain
John Hewitt
Bryce Howard
Pat Shoemaker
Pat Huskins
Eric Jessen
Bill Gayk
Pat Temple
Al Miller
Ray Brown
Paul Malkemus
Jack Brooks
David Niederhouse
Ben Nolan
Donald Webb
Pat Huskins
I•
Irvine Ranch Water District
Orange County Sanitation District
Pacific Telephone
Newport -Mesa School District
Orange County Transit District
Orange County Department of Education
Laguna Beach Unified School District
Laguna Beach Water District
Department of Parks State of California
• 368
Steve Malloy
Chuck Winsor
Karen Cashen
Dale Wooley
Christine Huard' -Spencer
Dr. Robert Peterson
Clyde Lovelady
Joseph Sovella
Bill Tibbits
14.0 REFERENCES
Atwood, J.L.
1980. "The United States distribution of the California blacktailed gnat -
catcher", Western Birds, Vol. 11, No. 2.
Barter, E.R.
1987 Excavations at CA-Ora-130 and CA-Ora-323, coastal bluff sites at
Crystal Cove State Park. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 23(4):30-75.
Bergen, F. A., ed.
1973 Miocene Sedimentary Environments and Biofacies, Southeastern Los
Angeles Basin: Pacific Section SEPM field trip guidebook.
Briuer, F.L.
1977 Report of the intensive archaeological survey of the Irvine Coastal
• Region Priority Parcel #1. Ms. on file at The Irvine Company,
Newport Beach.
Brown, J.C. and E.R. Barter
1987 PCAS project at Crystal Cove State Park. Pacific Coast Archaeolo-
gical Society Quarterly 23(4):1-6.
Bruff, S. C.
1946 The Paleontology of the Pleistocene Molluscan fauna of the Newport
Bay area, California: Univ. Calif. Pub. Geol. Sci. Bull., Vol. 27,
pp. 213-240.
California Native Plant Society
1977 Rare Plant Status Report, Dudleva multicaulis, compiled by Reid
Moran.
California Natural Diversity Data Base
1983. "Data Base Information for Laguna Beach and San Juan Capistrano
Quadrangles, Orange County" as referenced in "San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Biological Resources Study", PRC Engineer-
ing, 1983.
Cameron, C.
1987 Surface collection from CA-Ora-323. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 23(4):76-79.
0 369
•
Clark, G. H.
1952 The geology of the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Hills, Orange
County, California: Unpubl. MA thesis, Pomona.
Community Planning Services, Inc.
1986. Master Environmental Assessment.
Cooper, J. D.
1977 Paleontologic Assessment of the Glenn Ranch, Orange County, Cali-
fornia: Consultant report submitted to PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK.
1978 Paleontologic Assessment of the City of Costa Mesa: Consultant
report submitted to Archaeological Associates.
Cooper, J. D., and F. A. Sundberg
1976 Paleontologic Assessment of the Aliso Creek Planning Corridor,
Planning Units 2 and 3; Orange County, California: Consultant
• report submitted to Advance Planning Div., EMA, County of Orange.
Cooper, J. D.
1980a Paleontological assessment of Irvine Coast Planning Area, Part I -
Overview: Consultant report prepared for APC/LSA.
Cooper. J.D.
1980b Assessment of Paleontological Resources of the Irvine Coast Plan-
ning Area, Part II - field survey: consultant report prepared for
APC/LSA.
Corby, G. W.
1922 The geology and paleontology of the San Joaquin and Miguel Hills,
Orange County, California: unpubl. MA thesis, Stanford.
Cottrell, M.G., K. del Chario, T. Cooley, J. Clevenger, and C. Brewer
1983 CA-Ora-130: a multi -component campsite located on the coastal
bluffs of the southern California coast. In Excavations at
CA-Ora-130 and CA-Ora-323-coastal bluff sites at Crystal Cove State
Park. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Culbertson, Adams and Associates
1982 Laguna Laurel Planned
• 370
1983 Laguna Niguel Planned Community Draft Environmental Impact Report
#316
Dahleen, W. K.
1971 Physical Stratigraphy of the lower and middle Miocene rocks of the
western San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California: unpubl.
thesis UC Riverside.
Douglas, Ronald D. and Edward B. Weil
1981 Irvine coast survey cultural resources inventory, Orange County,
California. 'Ms. on file, Orange County Environmental Management
Agency.
Duggan, M. D.
1961 Geology of a part of the San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, Cali-
fornia: unpubl. MA thesis, UCLA.
EDAW, Inc.
• 1982a. "Irvine Coast Planning. Unit Development and Dedication Program
Biological Assessment", report prepared for Larry Seeman Asso-
ciates, Irvine, CA.
1982b. "Pelican Hill Road and Bison Avenue Extension Biological Assess-
ment", report prepared for Larry Seeman Associates, Irvine, CA.
1984 Orange County Master Environmental Assesment.
EDAW Associates
1984 Orange County Master Environmental Assessment.
Environmental Analysis Foundation
1974 Environmental Base Data Irvine Coastal Pro.iect Area.
Findlay, W. A.
1932 Geology of a part of the San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, Cali-
fornia: unpubl. MS thesis, Cal -Tech.
Ingle, J. C., Jr.
1967 Foraminiferal biofacies variation and the Miocene -Pliocene boundary
in southern California: Bull. Amer. Paleo., Vol. 52, No.236.
Irvine Ranch Water District
1987 Irvine Coast Subarea Master Plan.
371
LJ
Jack C. Raub Company
1979 Aliso Viejo Planned Community Development Plan, Master
Environmental Impact Report #88.
Irvine Ranch Water District
1987 Irvine Coast Subarea Master Plan.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
1974
Preliminary Biological Inventory and Management Recommendations.
report prepared for The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA.
1975
Wildlife Corridors and Road Crossing Irvine Coastal Project Area.
Kanakoff,
G. p. and W.K. Emerson
1959
Late Pleistocene Invertebrates of the Newport Bay area, California:
Los Angeles County Mus. Contrib. Sci. No. 31.
Koerper,
Henry C., John S. Killingley, and R. E. Taylor
• 1985
The little ice age and coastal 'southern California human economy.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7(1):99-103.
Larry Seeman Associates, Inc.
1980
Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement 237 Irvine Planning
Unit Local Coastal Program 80-4/Land Use Element Amendment 80-4
Zone Change.
1975
Wildlife Corridors and Road Crossing Irvine Coastal Project Area.
Larry Seeman Accnriatac. Tnr_
1980
1981
Environmental Information. Inland Coastal Hills.
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
1975 Geotechnical evaluation of proposed Highway Network Coastal General
Plan Amendment, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County (The Irvine Com-
pany Project 029-262), No. G5002-11 dated August 5, 1975.
1981 Preliminary geotechnical assessment of landslides along the planned
alignment of the future Pelican Hill Road, Project No. 1800631-01,
• draft report dated January $0, 1981.
372
•
I•
I•
1981 Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation, Pelican Hill
commercial site, Orange County, California, Project No. 1800631-03,
dated July 28, 1981.
1981 Preliminary geologic and soils report for the Irvine Cove addition,
City of Laguna Beach, California, Project No. 1810059-03, dated
August 17, 1983.
1982 Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation, Pelican Hill
Road, Orange County, California, Project No. 1810165-01; dated
February 5, 1982.
1982 County of Orange General Plan, Orange County Environmental Manage-
ment Agency.
1983 City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Land Use Element.
1984 City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space Element.
1984 City of Irvine General Plan, City of Irvine.
1985 City of Newport Beach General Plan.
Community Planning Services, Inc.
1986 City of Irvine Master Environmental Assessment.
1983 Laguna Niguel Planned Community Draft Environmental Impact Report
#316.
Jack C. Raub Company
1979 A1iso Viejo Planned Community Development Plan, Master Environmen-
tal Impact Report #88.
Loel, W., and W.H. Corey
1932 The Vaqueros Formation, Lower Miocene of California: Univ. of
Calif. Dept. Geol. Sci. Publ., Bull. Vol. 22, pp. 31 - 410.
373.
•
E
LSA, Associates, Inc.
1987 Pelican Hill Road Final Environmental Impact Report.
1987 Hoag Cancer Center Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Macko, M.E. and E.B. Weil
1986 Draft archaeological survey report -results of cultural resources
stage I investigations for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor. Ms. on file, County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency.
Miller, Wade
1971 Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (Ex-
clusive of La Brea Rancho): Bull. Los Angeles Co. Mus. Nat. Hist.,
Science No. 10.
Munz, P.A.
1974 A Flora of Southern California, University of California Press:
Berkeley, CA.
Nicholson, L.
1978 "The effects of roads on desert tortoise populations." Pages 127-
129 in M. Trotter and C.G. Jackson, Jr. (eds.). Desert Tortoise
Council Proceedings of 1978 Symposium.
Orange County Environmental Man
1982 Local Coastal Program
1986 The Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program, First Amendment, draft
document.
Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc.
1983 Irvine Cove Draft Environmental Impact Report #81-020.
PRC Engineering, Inc.
1983 " San Joagui
1985
agement Agency, Orange County, CA.
of Orange Environr
Orange County, CA.
374
report prepared for County
v Transportation Division,
•
1982 Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation for design pur-
poses, Pelican Hill Commercial site, Orange County, California,
Project No. 1800631-03, dated March 10, 1982.
1983 Geotechnical evaluation of alternative water tank locations, Wish-
bone Hill frontal slopes, County of Orange, California, Project No.
1830019-02, September 20, 1983.
1983 A preliminary investigation, Wishbone Hill frontal slopes, Orange
County, California, Project No. 1830019-01, dated August 16, 1983.
1984 Report of preliminary geotechnical feasibility study, Irvine 'Coas-
tal Planned Community, Orange County, California, Project No.
1841372-01, dated November 30, 1984.
1984 Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation and fault study -
proposed Phases I and II, Pelican Hill residential areas, Orange
County, California, Project Nos. 1800631-02, -04, dated December
17, 1984.
1985 Preliminary geotechnical investigation for a portion of the Pelican
Hill residential site, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, Califor-
nia, Project No. 1800631-08, dated June 21, 1985.
1985 Geotechnical fault study and geophysical investigation, Pelican
Hill Coastal Property, County of Orange, California, Project n0.
1800631-09, dated November 12, 1985.
1985 Comprehensive geotechnical review and assessment study for planning
purposes, Pelican Hill residential site, San Joaquin Hills, Orange
County California, Project no. 1800631-09, dated November 20, 1985.
0 375
•
1986 Preliminary geotechnical investigation of Planning Areas C, D, E2,
H3, three proposed water tank sites and borrow areas, the Irvine
Coast Planned Community, Irvine Coast Area, County of Orange,
California, Project no. 1841372-02, dated December 3, 1986.
1987 Report of grading plan review and supplemental geotechnical inves-
tigation, proposed Pelican Hill Road, between MacArthur Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway, County of Orange, California, Project
No. 1810165-04, dated May 11, 1987.
1987 Geotechnical input for Irvine Coast planned community master drain-
age and runoff management plan, County of Orange, California,
Project No. 1841373, draft report dated December 1, 1987.
• Schroth, A., I. Strudwick, and R. Cerreto
1987 The cultural assemblage from the PCAS Crystal Cove Project. Paci-
fic Coast Archaeological Society Ouarterly 23(4):7-29.
Smith, J.P. and R. York
1984 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society, Spec. .Pub. No. 1 (3rd edition),
Berkeley, CA.
Stebbins, R.C.
1966 A Fi
, Houghton Mifflin:
Stewart, G.R.
1971 "Rare, endangered, and depleted amphibians and reptiles in Califor-
nia." Herpetology. V:29-35.
Stuart, C. J.
1979 Lithofacies and Origin of the San Onofre Breccia, Coastal Southern
California, in Miocene Lithofacies and Depositional Environments,
Coastal California and Northwestern Baja California: SEPM Pac.
Section Guidebook.
Sullwold, H. H.
1940 Geology of a portion of the San Joaquin Hills, Orange County,
California: unpubl. MA thesis, UCLA.
•
376
•
The Irvine Company
1986 The Irvine Coast Land Use Plan Amendment.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1979 "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States" U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1985a "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant
taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of
review", Federal Register Vol. 50, No. 188.
1985b "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of verte-
brate wildlife; notice of review." Federal Register Vol. 50 N.
181.
• 377