Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 PARK NEWPORTCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GARY L. POSTED N 0 V 17 1999 Clerk•RecorderNOTICE OF DETERMINATION 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949)644-3200 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA. 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Sectior. 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone Na.: SCH# 99101045 _Javier S. Garcia _(949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reportsspecifiedinthisHRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 55. 1999 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency = Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project = will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. = An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were — were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations — was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were = were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200. i Ct"1 Javie S. Garcia, Senior Planner Filect Gary in the county or orange, rornia Gary L. Granville, Clark/Recorder r 19998501252 09;04am 11/17/99 856 6259319 06 52 203 1 1288.08 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 1999 FROM: Jay Elbettar, Building Director RE: Building Director's Acceptance and Approval of Negative Declaration Document in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Applicant — Park Newport Apartments, 1 Park Newport LOCATION: 1 Park Newport ACTION: Approval of the mitigated Negative Declaration for a slope stability and repair located at 1 Park Newport, the Park Newport Apartments. The Building Director finds that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence the project, as conditioned by the mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. AUTHORIZATION: Section 15356 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines the "Decision- maldng body" as any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. In this particular case, the project involves issuance of a Grading Permit by the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Section ,of 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that any advisory body (Planning Department representative in this case) of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision making body (Building Official) shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. The decision making body shall approve and adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. Attachments: Notice of Determination Negative Declaration and supporting documentation cc: Applicant Property Owner F.\USERS\PLN\ I PD-UP\PD•APPR\I PKNPT MEMORANDUM RESPONSE TO COMMENTS November 18, 1999 The following responses were received in regard to the posted Negative Declaration: Comments: 1. Acknowledgment of Receipt/ Distribution List Office of Planning and Research 2. Public Works Dept. City of Newport Beach Comments on Conditions of Approval Dept. Responsibility Conditions of approval/Mitigation Measures No. 1, 2 and 3 have been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure No. 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Deputy City Manager or designated Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Building Department. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November ofthat year. Mitigation Measure No. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by the property owner as determined by the City ofNewpon Bead: Building Department. 3. CalTrans: No Comments 4. California Dept. of Fish and Game Comment Letter attached Letter from the Dept. of Fish and Game raised concerns related to the coastal sage scrub habitat to be removed, revegetated and the contingency plans for failure of the process. There were also concerns related to the road closure, fencing to be constructed and duration of the closure and placement of fencing. Additional conditions of approval have been incorporated into the mitigation monitoring table and will be satisfied prior to issuance of the grading permit and during the course of construction and in conjunction with the multi -year monitoring program. Conditions of Approval 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as follows have been incorporated Mitigation Measure No. 5.1 Prior to issuance of the grading pennit the applicant shall provide, a. a site survey to quantify the take and revegetation amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. It. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi -year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location offencing (both chain link, orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right-of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the City proof of permission from the State far fence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. Mitigation Measure No. 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department offish and Game for road closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to notify users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure . It should state the reasons why, the suggested tittle line of the project and when the road nuty be re -opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Mitigation Measure No. 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant shall obtain written approvals front the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. Late Comments: The following comments were received after November 10, 1999: 5. California Regional Quality Control Board: Comment Letter attached Staff has revised the checklist document and the mitigation measures table to correct inconsistencies and to add the recommended requirements of the Regional Quality Control Board as follows: Mitieation Measure No. 4 The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director By Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner cc: Building Director Negative Declaration File Attachments: Acknowledgment of Receipt/Distribution List, dated October 22, 1999 CalTrans Letter, dated November 4, 1999 Memorandum from the City of Newport Beach, Manager of Development Services, dated November 9, 1999 Letter from Dept. of Fish and Game, dated November 12, 1999 Letter from Calif. Regional Quality Control Board, dated November 10, 1999 0 STATE OF CAL IFOItNIA 0Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gray Davis STRI-ET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTII STREET ROOX1 222 SACRAMENTO, CAI I UM-% 95514 GO%L'RNOR MAILING ADDRI'SS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAXIENTO, CA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-301S cw\c.opr.ca.go\ldearinghouse.htnil DATE: TO m ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT F OFPWN/ ot" a* % IroPCF.uso° Loretta Lvnch DI RI CI nR October 22, 1999 RECEIVED BY Javier S. Garcia PLANNING DEPARTNIE IT CITY Op !R rb;Fpnc- City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd OCT 2 7 1999 P.O. Box 1768 Ahq PM Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 71819110 111 1 12 1 1 i21 3141616 1 Park Newport SCH#: 99101045 k This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: October 12, 1999 Review End Date: November 10, 1999 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission Caltrans, District 12 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED SY 3DISTRICT 12 ON DRIVE, SUITE100 PLANNING D[PAIRTME47 ®'< CITY n= IRVINE, CA 92612-0661 AM 14ov, 0 J 109J 1U11iti12 PM 789III I I- I Ii IYIG16 A November 4, 1999 Javier Garcia, Senior Planner IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH# 99101045 Planning Department ND 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Log # 636 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) — Park Newport Apartments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration ND) for the Slope Stability and Repair Work proposed project for the Park Newport Apartments Complex. The proposed project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay and will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comments. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. S' c Eely, Robert F. Jo e h, C of Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR MEMORANDUM November 9, 1999 TO: Jay Garcia FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Park Newport grading After reviewing the subject document, there is one aspect which should be changed. The proposed Mitigation Measures 1,2 & 3 should be rewritten to delete reference to the Public Works Department. MM Nos. 2 3 are most directly associated with the Building Department as they relate to work on private property. MM No. 1 now falls to the Deputy City Manager. (I think he picked up the NPDES program at last night's City Council Meeting.) so] 11/12;1999 13:44 6194674239 CA DEPT FISH AND GAN PAGE Fly STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ _ _(;TRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5, South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 619) 467-4201 FAX 467-4239 November 12, 1999 Mr. Javier Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration for Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments Dear NIr. Garcia: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Negative Declaration regarding the Slope Stability/Repair Work at the Park Newport Apartments Complex located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Department requests the following clarifications be made on the project prior to approval of the grading permit: The Negative Declaration does not quantify the amount of coastal sage scrub vegetation to be removed nor the amount to be revegetated. The document only states that a revegetation ratio of 2.5:1 will be used following the grading work that needs to be done to stabilize the slope. Please quantify both the take and the revegetation amounts. The document should provide revegetation plan details, such as timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi year monitoring scheme should be proposed. There should be a specified contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. The document discusses the installation of fencing at the toe of the slope. The Department requests the specific location(s) of the fencing (both chain link and the silt fence) in order to determine if the fencing will be on the State's Ecological Reserve property. If it is, the City will need to request authorization for fence placement and for construction access from the Department. Also, the City will need to provide a certificate of liability to the Department for tite duration that the fencing is in place. The Negative Declaration also states that there will be no public access -related issues because Back Bay Drive has been closed to the public since the winter of 1997. This is inaccurate. The City removed the barricades and began allowing public access along Back Bay Drive some months ago. This project will likely cause temporary impacts to Lhe public's use of Back Bay Drive. The Department requests that if the City intends on closing Back Bay Drive, it should do some public relations with the users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road will be closed to the public. It should staLe the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City should also enforce 11/12.11999 13:44 6194674239 CA DEPT FISH AND GAPE PAGE 06 Mr. Javier Garcia November 12, 1999 Page 2 this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department so we can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Finally, the document does not state that is has received approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the •Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service should be a condition of the Negative Declaration. In conclusion, the Department concurs with the proposed project if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily. The Department sees the slope stabilization and revegetation as a positive impact and a benefit to the species and habitats of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Questions and comments may be directed to myself at the letterhead address, or to Erick Burres, Reserve Manager, at (714) 377-0684. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Negative Declaration, Sincerely, F% ' Theresa A. Stewart Senior Biologist Land Management and Monitoring Program cc: C.F. Raysbrook, Regional Manager, San Diego Bill Tippets, San Diego Erick Buttes, Huntington Beach John Scholl, Newport Beach Jack Fancher, FWS, Carlsbad California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Winston H. Hickox interact Address: htip://www.swrcb.ca.gov Gray Davis Secretaryfor 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3339 Governor Environmental Phone (909) 7824130 • FAX (909) 781-6288 Protection November 10, 1999 Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEIVED BY PIANNIN G NPRRTM AC l CITY OF N-• NOV 17 1111 pM Aim MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SLOPE STABILITY/REPAIR WORK GRADING PERMIT) - PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS Dear Mr. Garica We have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration document for this project referenced above. There are Some inconsistencies with the information documented in the environmental checklist and the explanation sections of the document regarding environmental impacts associated with Geology and Hydrology. The following items are the inconsistencies discovered in the document: In the Hydrology section on page 7 of the environmental checklist, environmental impacts 3 and 4, which are associated with the alteration of existing drainage pattern that may cause soil erosion and runoff, are marked "No Impact" and "and "Less than Significant Impact." However, the explanations that address 3 and 4 on page 9 illustrate "Less than Significant" and "No impact." In the Geology and Soils section on page 6 of the environmental checklist, the environmental impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil (2) are marked Less than Significant Impact." Consequently, the explanation that addresses soil erosion includes mitigation measures, which are illustrated on page 8; therefore, the environmental impact regarding soil erosion or loss of topsoil should be checked Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the environmental checklist section of the document instead of "Less than Significant." These inconsistent items mention above need to be address. If a Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit is required for the project, an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification must be submitted to the Regional Board office. California Envirowtiental Protection Agency ed Recycled Paper Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department 2 - November 10, 1999 If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3221. Sincerely, Tom B. Meregillano Planning Section cc: Mosie Boyd - State Clearinghouse File:O\\RB8WEBSR\VOL3\USERS\Planning\tmeregil\CEQA Comments\Neg-Dec & Mit Neg Dec-Comments\Oct 99\Newport Slope Stability 10-18-99.doc California Environmental Protection Agency cRecycled Paper CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949)644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and lone -term performance. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. t A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this Ending is tr ! attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date Javier S. Oarcia Senior Planner F:\USERSXPLN\SHAREDIIPLANCOWENDINGNARKNPrNEGDEC r,m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM , Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area. The areas to the south, east, CHECKLIST Page 1 1Z Y and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Agricultural Resources 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise Recreation Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance CHECKLIST Page 2 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Javier S. Garcia Printed Name Gb g Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHAREDUPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPT2XCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 3 w Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Sighificant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated El I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat Q conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 4 5 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides or mudflows? u 101 C 0 u n t7 0 1z ABM CHECKLIST Page 5 M Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpo ted 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as f defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately Q supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? V. HYDROLOGY. Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing aICA drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CHECKLIST Page 6 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4) Substantially alter the existing Ltil drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water 0 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 8) Otherwise substantially degrade 0 water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year 0 flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood El hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a El significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 mudflow? VI. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct 0 implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or E7j contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Ifnpact Mitigation Incorporated 3) Result in a cumulatively EZ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? 6) Result in inadequate parking 1Z capacity? CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Vill. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on Q any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? CHECKLIST Page 9 i0 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Idipact Mitigation Incorporated 6) Conflict with the provisions of an Ef adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IX. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or 1Z handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? 4) Be located on a site which is Q included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Ifnpact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a EZ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 6) Expose people or structures to a Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase in 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic EZ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CHECKLIST Page 11 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? 67j Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment f requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? CHECKLIST Page 12 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project' projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact L 0 0 C n 7 0 C A Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 11 0 0 0 0 C Lessthan Significant Impact No Impact 7 I 0 Bf 0 R1 j CHECKLIST Page 13 lU 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XVI RECREATION. 1) Would the project increase the u— of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreatiot facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facili would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require tt construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect t the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0. 0 n n n M Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERSTLNISHARED\ I FORMSW EG-DECICK LIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST w The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of theCEQAGuidelinesandareonfileandavailableforreviewatthePlanningDepartment,ICity of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: I. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January, 9, 1990 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan MR, 1997. 10. South Coast air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 11. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 13. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 14, Grading Plan Review — Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, ParkNewportApartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 15. Biological Assessment ofProposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park NewportApartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. 16. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98-061113. July 1, 1999. 17. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9 18. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport IDunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (509o) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Proeram/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Revised November 18, 1999 1 Would the proposed project: I. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to tite general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted far the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: I. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. Revised November 18, 1999 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Ponulation/Housine Would the project: I. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Revised November 18, 1999 Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. C) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. Revised November 18, 1999 The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:' 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands2), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. Revised November 18, 1999 b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. Revised November 18, 1999 A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. Revised November 18, 1999 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is a corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitigation Measure No. 1 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading(construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Revised November 18, 1999 Mitigation Measure No. 4 The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide written approval of the erosion control plan by the Regional Quality Control Board. 5. Hydrology Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? Revised November 18, 1999 Less Than Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. Revised November 18, 1999 10 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Quality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than SignfficantImpact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. Revised November 18, 1999 11 To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: i On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturers specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. Revised November 18, 1999 12 d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure Revised November 18, 1999 13 to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. S. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. 7. Transaortation/Circulation/Parkine Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less titan Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Revised November 18, 1999 14 No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 8. Biological Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities Revised November 18, 1999 15 The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper mil, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less that: Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February 1 through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Revised November 18, 1999 16 No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the Revised November 18, 1999 17 preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have,a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Revised November 18, 1999 18 Mitieatiott Measure No. 5 A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. Mitigation Measure No. 5.1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide, a. a site survey to quantify the take and revegetation amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. b. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi -year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location of fencing (both chain link, orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right-of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the City proof of permission from the State for fence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. Mitigation Measure No. 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department of Fish and Game for road closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to notify users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure . It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Mitigation Measure No. 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the -applicant shall obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would Revised November 18, 1999 19 be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. Revised November 18, 1999 20 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. 5. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be Revised November 18, 1999 21 reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome nosie levels would not be significant 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Revised November 18, 1999 i*A Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations NBMC Chapter 10.28). Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public Revised November 18, 1999 23 services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will, result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 13. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Revised November 18, 1999 24 No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s GenerE Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect sigi applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, tc preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natu and cliffs. Revised November 18, 1999 25 Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Ope Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develop) 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic a Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less titan Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site Revised November 18, 1999 26 and its surroundings? Less than Significant Lnpact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 15. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Revised November 18, 1999 27 Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading Revised November 18, 1999 28 permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Revised November18,1999 29 Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Revised November 18, 1999 30 No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063 [c] [3] [D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. Revised November 18, 1999 31 so San Bernardino 605 60 Tj County J Los Angeles County 57 71 90 \ 91 5 91 •\ Riverside 15 County as 4os 55 Orange 22 L 5s 405 jCounty 41 133 / c 73 f1 1 74 1 jI PROJECT ra SITE \ Q C. I I t O f San Diego jr P County Q P 8/13/99(PNP830) 4';` N LSD 0Scale in Miles 3 6 Figure 1 Regional Location S Af Ci ' ;`°`'Sb\ ''•'j; /y ': ,'., -44, t• \;...- \` A e M1• 1•I t',' Sth r t+ Al ao Q\\ 1 6•`•,".7l'-'•;.. - _ ... Sall l` Q C•a DD ators 15 Qrt i a ._. ;,.•• BACK ' - xe u^•.._. ;••j sll 1 ilfi.eer. I ' . } •`, , r,""'"•+. ;t SIN.,,_ ;i qq _ J .... v 1 WI y{ Pit 4h j % , ,.+," ;tiY"E'+, - .. i!''•.7.'.. l t-C. .\ 1-3 r ' •'fit. .' a / 9 firaS A a H Parht n eh If D ( / Y 1 90 -. t+`lii1 T r, d 1t! + F ` Colhnc 7 3a Source; U; 8/13/99(PNI 41% N LS Upper NewportBay en a mnioraooen t4 . LSD scale in Feet ter-- 0 75 150 S INXIM • ' Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site Approximate Slide Bolindaly i OKMCpI I••• - •` - I 1lOb@COOL p f r@ACK:BAY-.DRI __ T_ I 1' 1' L - I l I--• + 1 - ye / xsnn" rwp Imo•^.f"x .. ^n•• -' :p ::•\ -, ^-/ / r -' ti^•`- x "\ ' tea. f .. • ' r .`a'—` T v I _ . ... Aare, ;____ _ ----- ; •. . _ • - _ Source: RBA 8/13199fPNPR301 LSh Scale in Feet 1 0 30 61 LEGEND: '•• .'•"'' I Galaxy Park f;•;;•-• '. 2 Eastbluff Remnant S/-'? Y! t 3 Eastbluff Park a All I v yy'IIR i4'NNra{i Collins i•s-_ Source: USGS 7.5' 1 i \•' ;%Ch I 0' Sall 1' t %/ E_.Ol "l',1 cov T J ram Atl. ynu9l i > w e S + III "INj ^ ° o ••II'•', b\ y t`I '/\Hit f'S Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin &Laguna Beach, Calif." 8/13/99(PNP830) s?' N L A Scale in Feet A\1J' 11 o I000 Zaoo I ?,' -lit n n. uii • J PR tiia' Ia 73 Figure 6 View Locations 50- LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering tionHabitatRestorationLSh Biology and oralands Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology May 25, 1999 Principals Mr, Loren Hays ' US Fish and Wildlife Service Rob Balen 2730 Loker Avenue West Brady Carlsbad, CA 92008LescardLesC David Clore Ross Dobberteen Steve Granbohn Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Richard Harlacher Roger Harris Dear Loren: An Homrighausen Larry Kennings Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above BackLauraLaffer Carollym Lobell Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. Bill Mayer These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. Rob McCann No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the Anthony Petrol completed survey forms are attached for your•review. The six surveys were made one Rob Schonboltz week apart, except between the -fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Malcolm J. Sproul Lloyd B. Zola Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly A s s 0 c i a t e s as possible so that it is completed, including the revegetation of the slide area, beforetheonsetofthewinterrains. 'They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- James Baum ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated AugustConnieCalica Tung -then Chung, Ph.D. 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative Steven W. Conkling to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy Gary Dow rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff Jack Easton and cut the away the cryptogarnic crust, which covers the soil in the open areas andRickardEricksonprotectsitfromdamagebyraindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is m- Kevin Finrher Frank Hatchon stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further Clint Kellner scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Benson Lee Judith H. Malamut Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it Sabrina Nichol would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceohM. W. 'ConneB regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letterDeborahhPrPraalio Amy Skewes-Cox to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding Lynette Stanchina the permit process. fill Wilson O'Conner r 525/99((P:\PNP8301gnatturveyltr.wpdN One Park Plaza, Suite 300 Telephone 949 553-0666 other offices located in Berkeley Irvine, California 91614-5981 Facsimile 949 553-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvine.lsa@lta-assoerom 53 0 LSA Associates, Inc Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out -of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. If you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at 949)553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1114 1 M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Restoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Rich Kevi Attachment 5n51990:trxa, Site: Inve Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad a CAGN/CAR SURVEY FORM stigators: Date: S 2/ Starting Time :,,,-Z/ 5 Stopping Time: 7 !Era Conditions (Veather & Temperature): / Start: 0 Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: N Habitat type: ? 0 C n a PI h4ie' E n a Po Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height C4/Fur G- J. r/ L eza y/c 2. 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.SO 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants Comments: Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of OrangeCountyParksandOpenSpaceAreasandTheIrvineCompanyPropertydatedFebruary 1n Taal by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. " All habitat information, including dominant -plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATC/TIER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY PROJECTNA, E 1. Location of (Ite survey area: 2. Dascrlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wag tape vocalization used (if at all):, 7 „ d. Total number of surveys: p • Dates S 2/ Blolo Isl s O Cam,., We Iher Temperature o Acres Surveyed Per Blologlst par Day Route Used 99 G o / GZ 3 R 0-,? Ad - 6. Gnatcatcher sighling(s):' Number Age.. Sex 6. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):• Number Age.. Sex 9 7. Provide a qualitative description of the, plant co munitles (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the i survey area: SaC 4 SY99 P n•—:?, See map for locatlon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesiling, and unknown I Page 1 n Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad a Site: Inves Date: Starting Time: D Stopping Time: % Z S Conditions (weather & Temperature%: Start: G z G Stop: i 3 to c/o G Species observed: CAGN / CAwR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / UnknOvn Other sensitive species: Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant ( A Rel. Cover 1. ,,..n!' t/d- mac/ O"Yn t4 'y0"yovy 3. C/f/M C 5, I YnIG + 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 6 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants ts: Use John Is Habi 0 70 ,.80 90 100 35-b0 test Inc. X herb cover: dated May 1992 prepared by e., tha vpdptation of Ora: All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.. 57 1994 COASTAL CALIFO NIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY'_ ./%C-,,ri. r / • •'- PROJECT NAMEr 1. Location of Ills survey area: 2. Description Of survey methods: 3. How frequently wad tape vocalization used (if at all): d. Total number of surveys: e_ Mi e Dates s y9r Blolo Ist s 3, dCc4-..,P Weather C d' TemperalWe 30 Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Da 3 yam. Route Used e d s /3 ke 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):' Number AW.Sex 7. Provide a qualitative description o) the survey area: __ Sc- 4/111 7 6. Brown-hoadod cowbird sighting(s):' Number Ana— Sex communities ( include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the - eTe A,2, See map for locatlon(s). Age categorles to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. 44 I Pago 1 x Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon -No. Mapped loc. No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEY FORTS Investigators: %3, Q Ca Date: SGT Starting Time: G;?o Stopping Time: Conditions (Weather & Temperature): Start: S F Stop: r Gee Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknovn Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant( 1. ilGe/G _4 "aY rrCC 2. fj% e C 6 e-.cc ttiS 3. 4. GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Rel.. Cover d e 30 Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 X gap: % bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants r agora,... Avg. Height rcef71 80 90 100 X herb cover: 35-60 >6 Tr.. . iU CN n Use Orange Coungig Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of orange11 County Parks and'Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Property dated Fe ruar 10, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. e or n/4 5y' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY r ', .P // •• PROJECT NAME `a, %r/Vpzr /n os/,P /r c,y 1. Location of the survey area: 2. description of survey methods: 3. How frequently was tapb vocalization used (if at all): Q—7 jo /0 wY 4. Total number of surveys: Dates elolo Ist s Weather Temperature Acres Surveyed Per elolo Ist Per Day Route Used S6/ s,/ O 'CB--t- G/ mor: Vann y s-y °f= 3 171, /o 4. a— c- S. Gnatcatcher slghting(s):' Number AIN..Sex 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):' Number Age.. Sax 7. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (Include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: _ Se e- _ s ,. e, , re ru ,` ' n)1'. d -40A rfy See map for Iocation(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 O Survey No. Polygon Ho. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ou Ld CAGN/CAVR SURVFT FORK Site: Investigators: Dater Starting Time: 4 ; y5-/I Stopping Time: ;DO ///% Conditions (Veather S Temperature): / Start: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: ) / Habitat type: 2,10 P c e o G er,laoa / b Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height u- c0 - S- eaA 2. a0 0 3. ci • , Gu , ,uniavr, 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 gap: % bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 J r Other important plants M 7 CUC SVeLJQi +i a <u carniw C',t t n 4 ? Te-.-• .Si 'moo _,Q P r I7 tG 1. • J 'r ^ / -h_ d' r f 7- f r j Allnn / it / ., - _.. -> e . eSt S a raw rrewf i Use Or a County's Habitat Classification System datedyMa 1992 prepared byJohnGrayandDavidSramletandMethodsusedtoSurveytheVegetationofOran eCountyParksandOpenSpaceAreasandThervineCompanyPropertZdatedFebruary 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' - /. I. PROJECT NAME! 1. Location of ihs survey area: 2. Description of survey methods: a. How frequently was tape vocalization used (If at all): 4. Total number of surreys: Date s 131010gist s 5. Gnatcatcher sighting(s) Number Am" Sex 7. Provide a r survey area: plant communities 41 ur rer uay Route Used F. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):• Number Age.. Sax ' to dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the ry? . See map for locatton(s). Age categorles to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently Iledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. 0 G Page 1 Survey No. Site: Inve Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVRT FORM i stigators: . r.:.,.e// I Date: 2 Starting Time: Co;5-0 Stopping Time: 8.7-5- Conditions (Veather S Tem errature)J Start: S /— C%-, Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CA" Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals_ Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant Rel. Cover 1. nre/a. C4/r #er hiGC 2. 3. !, i rn GG urnicvti S v Avg. Height ee f ec T 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 ® 100 gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 Other important Use Orana County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by JohnGrayandDavidBramletandMethodsusedtoSurveytheVegetationofOrangeCountyParksandOpenSpaceAreasandTheIrvineCompanyProert 'dated Februar 10, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCI IER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY . /_:Z, // n Y's . _ // - PROJECT NA. E: etc„— 1. Location of the survey area: 2. tie§crlptlon of survey methods: S. How frequently was tape vocalization used (lf at all): Al. Total number of surveys: 6— Dates Blolo 1st s Weather Tom eralure Acres Survayad Per Blolo Ist Per Da Route Used yZ2 Q i//l GQisnP G Oti / SC9u. t / 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):" Numtwr Age" Sex 7. Provide a qualitative descrlpti%9•n of the plant surveyarea: Sea _< $19 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):' Number Age Sax include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the 3 See map for locatlon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 Site: Inves Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc.-No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAQR SUR9R7 FORK Date: Starting Time:_[, ' 2 S'//' Stopping Time: y,'yo i4/7 Conditions (Weather 6 Temperature): / / Start: Jr. i Li/sG/--e 0 ", avw-Z04 Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAUR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type:.? /D rreela-- Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. ( - i. /• P (0. C 6 'f U r..ie fig d D C- f r 2.9i/ h Cri.eSGehS 3v % S-G 1 n rtfy 2 Foe / 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 (2p 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Other important plants Use John t a /I, X' uU+e2/lt4TeCi'C-p.,lr lJH/ ssification System dated M a,ti rs /0%4. Sc%Cornea re j•O. o- yCd G 71 prepared by .71 tion of Orange 10, 1993 by Jones A Stokes Associates, inc. Or All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' Z S, // Q `/'„ ' • // PROJECT NA, E: %Oc,- /r /r r cue 1. Location of the survey area: ; % , Y , n., , 7, 2. D"crlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently was tape vocalization used (if at ail): 4. Total number of surveys: _6 11 T Dates Biolo Ist s Weather Temperature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Roule Usegd 3./ CJ'Co A? ur/ Tv C/vv y f5'F 3 g e Jo`' 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number Age..- Sax 7. Provide a qualitative survey area: Al,. ,, 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Number Ana" Sex species and habitat and adjacent to the See map for tocatlon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. 07 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date 4. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval goading permit Public Works subject to the approval of the Deputy City Manager or designated Program monitoring Department Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading established prior to the Engineer, issuance of grading Condition of Plan Check and permit Publie Works 2. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Approval routine monitoring by Program monitoring Department completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected property owner established prior to the during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be issuance of grading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Building Department All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November l of that year. Condition of Plan Check and Public Works Approval marine monitoring by Program monitoring Department 3. 7be constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by property owner established prior to the the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach issuance of grading Building Department. permit Condition of Plan Check Public Works 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation approval Prior to the issuance of Department control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local grading permit and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable smdons). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide written approval of the erosion control plan by the Regional Quality Control Board S. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. approval grading permit Department and the Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the Planning Department coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the startof comtmetion The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist farruliar with coastal sage scrub, habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in Page 1 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Tinting of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works 5.1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide, Approval grading permit Department and the Planning Department a. a site survey to quantify the take and revegetafion amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. b. a revegetation plan detailing the timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a mulfi-year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetafion is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location of fencing (both chain link, orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right- of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the Stale of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the City proof of permission from the State for fence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Approval grading permit Department and the 5.2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall Planning Department coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department of Fish and Game for mad closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to notify users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the mad may be re,opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works approval grading permit Department and the 5.3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant Planning Department shall obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. Page 2 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15,1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Pelson Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date 11. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuanceof Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Secthm[0.28.040 approval grading permit 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archcological/palearrological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shalt determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper a plomtion and/ or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/ or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. r: tUJCKZiWLNIZHAKHU\t PLANUUM%FENDINOIPARKNPIIMTMSRTAB Page 3 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 12, 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. 7r M A. 2. W1 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 General Information Applicant/Agent: Gerson, Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 659-1621 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 Property Owner: Richard Ellis, Gerson, Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 659-1321 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 Proiect Description Please attach the following materials for the project: (See separate Initial Study/Negative Declaration) Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scale Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 81/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map strikeeut notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: Park NewportApartments Clubhouse Slide Modification Project 2. Project location: Back Bay Drive near San Joaquin Hills Road 3. Assessor's parcel #: 4. Permit application #: 5a. Proposed use: Slide stabilization 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc.) : 0.63 acre 5c. Site size: 5d. Building height: Not applicable 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: Residential/OVen Space Zoning: Multi-family/Recreation and Env. Open Space Specific Plan: LCP: 7. Previous governmental approvals: Existing Coastal Permit 8. Other governmental approvals required: Federal: State: Coastal Commission Regional: Local: 5tm Begin construction: _ date) Estimated occupancy: date) URV04\ PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC q 3 6 5_ C. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate 'Not applicable" or None". Please refer to Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared separately for this project. 1. Land Use and Planning Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the projects conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. 2. Population/Housing/Employment a. If the project is residential; please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the average household size expected. b. If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. 3. Earth (Geologic Problems) Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. 4. Water Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater levels or bodies of surface water. Is the project located in a flood hazard zone? 5. Air Qualfty Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Please describe how the project will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project. 7. Biological Resources Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Describe the affect on any adopted energy conservation plan, use of nonrenewable resources and whether the project will result in the loss of any known mineral resource of future value to the region and residents of the State. 9. Public Health and Safetv Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? URV041PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC 10, Noise Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise -generating equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? 11. Public Services Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. Fire protection Police protection Schools Maintenance of Public facilities, including roadways Other Government Services 12. Utilities and Service Systems Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. Natural gas Communications Systems Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities Sewer systems or septic tanks Storm water drainage systems Solid waste and disposal Police protection Local or regional water supplies 13. Aesthetics Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? Light and Glare Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources Please indicate whether any archaeological or paleontological surveys have been done on the site. Could the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? 15. Recreation Describe the impact of the project on the demand for neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities and any affect on existing recreational opportunities. URV04\PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. 1 Robert Balen, Principal, LSA Associates Date clAMW Print name of owner or representative and Title Signature For Office Use Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: Rev. 5-28-99 OIRV04\PROJECTS\PNP830\nbapplic.DOC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT S ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES S 3300 NEWPORT BLVa e" P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9266E-8915 G«aoa+`r RECEIPT NUMBER: 01000439025 RECEIVED BY: PERRY 1 PAYOR: LSA ASSOCIATES INC TODAY'S DATE: 10/08/99 REGISTER DATE: 10/11/99 TIME: 16:23:23 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIV ONE PARK NEWPORT $354.00 TOTAL DUE: $354.00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANGE 00 $354.00 26936 $354.00 $.00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 BUILDING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3288 FEE RECEIPT Date O e Plan Check No. Received By: ell ipeow f .A— R000: vn`1 Frnm Job Address Building Plan Check......................................................................2900-5002 Zoning Plan Check (Architectural)...............................................2700-5003 Zoning Plan Check (Grading).......................................................2700-5003 Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds...................................................... 2900-5004 FirePlan Check.............................................................................2330-5055 Electric Plan Check.......................................................................2900-4612 Plumbing Plan Check....................................................................2900-4616 $ Mechanical Plan Check.................................................................2900-4618 $ Overtime Plan Check - Building...................................................2900-5023 $ Overtime Plan Check - Grading....................................................2900-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - Planning..................................................2700.5003 Preliminary Code Compliance Review..........................................2900.5002 Reinspection B E H P/Special Inspection.....................................2900.5008 Reinspection Fire ............... Temporary Electric ................................. Temporary Gas ....................................... Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ..... Underground Utilities Waiver ............... 2330. 5050 2900- 4612 2900- 4616 2900- 5008 010- 2225 GreaseInterceptor ......................... w...........L..................................2900. 4620 Planning Department Fees.... K.!!,1!" .. 5 !4c '1 `* 2700.5000 Sale of Maps & Publications ....................... PAID ............. ............. 2700- 5812 Determination of Unreasonable Hardship...................................2900.5018 Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............. n.Oa..1999................... 010-2263 Other ( Specify) .............................. MY-OFtE WPORl.-I'Cz t... TOTAL FEES Fee Receipt No. NOTICE: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMITTAL f\ feerept.198) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS CLUBHOUSE SLIDE MODIFICATION August 19, 1999 Prepared for: City ofNewport Beach I 60 San Bernardino 605 60 County 'J rLosAngelesCounty57 71 91 so 5 91 \ Riverside 15 County 38 \ 4os 55 Orange 22 1 2 1 5 — 55 aos jCounty 241 133 0 73 1 74 1 % 1 PROJECT its SITE r I c+ i 1 San Diego County 0 v 5 a i 8/13/99(PW830) Scale in Miles LSA -- 0 3 6 Figure 1 Regional Location a '_' s ( /• .,_-::%: .-T'«r 1' .,• g/,:,%-.-, R•\ o c'' - --`=- y,iLind',y itel In l I l,"`+ -%'' _` — _•_ N!. :: ...P/ ll.. •\1^:: :v."r"': y:W ,%/'• .-row.:/ /ti .\`11, i. tl n 1:•245 Y\ ,'. nc '" t!.. : ? C '{ y.`I Q ::..rj5.:_ ,•;?':,, AP Salt si U f. i ''}l4:,: `.;1-..,, V •_G,r. rv4..n{r'. EvaporaC orS ?Ili: •'; `lt it. i` ' .:i;i(i'ri'i"•i ;fif?i1 5, ., :.'i. ,S I •;C l\ f ' a'::- y i 4. L /• ' `%•. .,. ..` ` _ m , .c a ., yl. a 15 10 ms '1F ltar ,. ,- ,-. Ql ... .Qt I• 11ij 'Q7 a\c` V` -`e fiq'iY' I e t v F '' Ar '@t t ;:' pYi i C1• r r. .. m' 0,: v- bpv.. axe_;•'» , It•1i14't. p`Q1p+tir • ••.• i a T tW .)Q b \44 T 7/ I, ,rl_I . a o r , 7T '`i 'i-.!! , (eh 5cl '\.' f \^ Aar' ;1;j 1. 1 ` ;'dii U/•., a`. ,,. , . I ' ne 1= re a A`, I81 ( L _ Td(•"_ -:w - ./h,'''3y. 4,'. BLUFF& SLIDE i' REVEGETATION J.^' 1 ti`y.i"' ' C f' t N t\I (• /, Y `1 IA •4, .`.`` i /,:Y•. KO_"`. „ q• I . 1 LLL/// , , r \.., `li'rt, • ('gin._ '+j- ,J ,(, I\ r .i):'!\ . jj// / j' ,fa\,,'','S`ot•\l.zzL111 !,,; : / fr y f•al.,.C c '.,~+',,, ,,•i: i• ,l: / ^ (i r4 r ` , \, I 1 g", i • .;Mvki`#' L•. .I . ri «; `11_,l l 'T •./r `• i'1z i '_••\y 'd' tc,. 1.. (.; •'•.`+', C. 'vs' `' /,'' i ~ j CAI r n . r , ^^ I v \ \ CO T r . rV ' L`, I'q``\`\y/, Sch% s± I • `. Dome-- as `—^"` _./Y `_' a` \/ it •\ "\'• - Colli—_'Ba Source: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin & Laguna Beach, Calif.": • `r';,'• ' 8/13/99(PNP830) Figure 2 41). N LScale in Feet S • 1/1/'11—00 2000 Project Location y1 r Upper Newport Bay 25/13/99(MF83U) LSh a Scale in Feet iso lfi Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site t f F iks R a Apprnsiuuile..Sl ide ' Bouudurl —• w1E 't > yf{.y, i. •{ay lH`n xsil' ^.t "}af. *i .' s..._ .!. _ m m a Source: RBI 8/13/99(PNPf N: LSD Seale in Feet 30 60 Grading Plan l " -` rt. ` r'.. Y t%Z , 'Y O . .- J•' „ t i F JS i 1 , 1 LEGEND: /' ,;.•s1;Y .<rid c,S• rL/%::..=J1 -- - 1 Galaxy Park .. .> J - i'I ,• :}- .:. \'. 2 Eastbluff Remnant ` w, --' '<<' ` ,[.s j / ----- 3 Eastbluff Park 0 7} y ` 1r.{• b P .. , Salt ,•'':,1 0l Y , , Evaporakors 1'Fi,,,. Y;,1 j`•.:. .;{{!' .::••fat••. CK j 8 •=..•'-i:,...,::`:, h c. a } i,. 1 II . . N :t ilf, v r}}:, «„ ;,;,1('•.r • ^..`.`._ v. '' -s;, ,V W I Pit Cr Y"s.''l•i'1$\, -,d5',_ ``tCvr i t' s icq'•qy,,'. F ..x,X 1 % a j0.: l •` i,;;>_, 7;n,".ti t.'r?>;;r. = 1 S(lj't ,, '" y ', , 1. ' `\d'' ' la lr5•`N°\.il"n(a: n ql} \ I,', xi,^.lff+a``C diy'aaJri./ `y1,(A'" . 3 . 0 • ` taUA' 1'i ', 00 rz fH q• •Irl' A silpj j t (, t J T, -y,. •f ?4` (• ;, •y'II y—, i 4l ,i5".'I`it't. • i.. t •, S ' W „ . , .` c•I',. ^. ... /, I''-• 4f .•,I s ',, ^ }'' Ymrona del Mar \ ( r, ',k •I. 1 w v .2y ,tip ,h{L • gA sc ': .I (1 1•\`}1;\ 1'', Aal1 r 5 I .1 S t1 •,t, / . j !_ d 1 (iij V./..., y Rl `T ,'C . .i 1 BLUFF REVEGETATION •'' J Ji t wp),, '.i ?,. . / . do - dim rll,,' :T:.,",:,•`''" " tiA i,ST?,. ) ; .2VCl71 ''.\ ( ri(r . ` \\ J ®pt. •y i a `" c''rl .- - ,\ 1 .:';•" o r'(j//i:' ';lv`,._,-'a. i\ "-.ni'. .j=l•'.xjs•-: J, -},t a t.',f I^' i jl`4`• : 1;,t'lli `;i^, , ` ; '' `i iZ2 ,,;, _L11,,, I In:3'' f' JI ;.\\ tC;+{ l •-''.,"` y 1•-, I -.`.'.,, tSJ 1 / r ,cy ilr;+ 5 .',w ; '•- air' 1 _colltns _ _— Beacon ____ -_- .•; , es .\ h T -ra \{> J(:% i 3 B6 fis.JIpI-r,1f7L'_ 1:.U[(U9y A IF e s I ItIta`•\ x ' I tk ` 'Po E . • ^"' , 1 Source: USGS 75' Topographic Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin & Laguna Beach, Calif." :;• ; , "f,l'i' l - '/ 8/13/99(PNP830) Figure 6 IN LcA Scale inFeet 1\ 1 1 o 2000 View Locations I INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS CLUBHOUSE SLIDE MODIFICATION PROJECT August 19, 1999 Preparedfor: City ofNewport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 949) 644-3210 Prepared by: LSAAssociates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 949) 553-0666 LSA Project #PNP830 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 11 I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1-1 CONTACT PERSONS ....................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2-1 2.2 LOCATION ............................................ 2-1 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................ 2-1 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ 2-4 2.5 REQUIRED PERMITS/APPROVALS ....................... 2-8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .......................... 3-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES ................................ 4-1 4.1 AESTHETICS .......................................... 4-1 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES . ........................... 4-5 4.3 AIR QUALITY ......................................... 4-6 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................ 4-10 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................. 4-14 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................. 4-16 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............. 4-21 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................... 4-23 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................ 4-26 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................... 4-27 4.11 NOISE .............................................. 4-28 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................... 4-30 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................... 4-31 4.14 RECREATION ....................................... 4-33 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ......................... 4-34 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS . .................. 4-36 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............ 4-38 4.18 EARLIER ANALYSES ................... 4-39 5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING 1-iREPORTPREPARATION ................................ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ................................ 5-1 APPLICANT............................................... 5-1 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................ 6-1 ATTACHMENTS A - Gnatcatcher Surveys 8/17/99«P:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) iii LSA Associates, Inc. LIST OF FIGURES 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - PAGE Regional Location Map ...................................... 2-2 ProjectLocation ............................................ 2-3 Site Plan of Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Area ............ 2-5 Site Photograph of Existing Slide Area .......................... 2-6 Site Grading Plan ........................................... 2-7 CoastalViews .............................................. 4-3 8/171990PAPNP830Wideisn LSA Associates, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guide- lines, this Initial Study has been prepared as documentation for a Negative Declaration for the proposed slide modification project at Park Newport Apartments in Newport Beach, California. The project proposes to remove and stabilize a 0.63 acre slide area along the coastal bluffs at Park Newport Apartments above Back Bay Drive in the City ofNewport Beach, County of Orange, California. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in Decem- ber, 1997. Back Bay Drive provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Follow- ing slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby,providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers, as specified in a proposed habitat restoration plan, which is an integral part of the project. The Negative, Declaration and the accompanying Initial Study evaluate the potential project" level of environmental impacts that may result from the development of the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and is responsible for approval of the environmental documentation. The City will then submit the documentation to the Coastal Commission for subsequent ap- proval of the project. tCONTACT PERSONS Any questions regarding the preparation of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration, its assumptions, or conclusions should be referred to: Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 949) 644-3206 I CIS 8/17/99«P:1PNP8301slideisnd.wpd)> 1 1-1 M Associates, Inc. I 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION The project proposes to remove and stabilize a 0.63 acre slide area along the coastal bluffs at Park Newport Apartments. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has remained closed to the public both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. The slide's instability poses a threat to the road and to light-footed clapper rail habitat. The project proposes to excavate the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 2.2 LOCATION rThe project site is located along the coastal bluffs at Park Newport Apartments above Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project location. 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Physical Characteristics The project site is located along the coastal bluffs above Back Bay Drive. The slide poses a threat to several wildlife species present in the bay, such as the light-footed clapper rail utilizing the salt marsh habitats on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide area contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. Surrounding Uses The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area. The areas to the south, east, and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. I8/17/99KPAPNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 2-1 I LV Assoclates, Inc. 2.4 PROJECTDESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vege- tation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restora- tion Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long -tern performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineer's plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. Scope of Work The project will consist of the following scope of work: Installation of fencing, i.e., chain link and silt fence. Removal of all remaining vegetation and debris from the slide. Excavation of the slide. Installation of snow fence and signs at upper and lower edges of project to prevent access by pedestrians. Spreading and incorporation of seed over 0.63. acre. Installation of 160 container plants. Hydroseeding of the site. Maintenance of the 0.63 acre site until the performance standards have been met. Project Schedule Prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (on or about August 15, 1999), all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal California gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. The site shall be kept weed free until the time of vegetation installation. Installation shall be completed between October 1 and No- vember 15, 1999. The maintenance period shall begin upon the completion of the installation and shall continue until the performance standards have been met. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that I8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 2-4 1 M Associates, Inc. I 1 1 1 1 no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. All material resulting from this activity shall be appropriately and legally disposed of off site. Prior to excavation, a temporary chain link fence shall be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. In addition, a silt fence shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. In order to prevent the public from walking through the restoration areas, an adequate amount of four foot high snow fencing shall be installed to prevent access to the restoration area. In addition, the fencing will be posted with small signs stating Native Plant Restoration Area, Please Keep Out." All work shall be confined within the limits of grading noted on the plans. Following grading, all temporary fencing shall be removed. 2.5 REQUIRED PERMITSIAPPROVALS Coastal Commission - The project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit will be requested by the City of Newport Beach. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 2-8 7 LSA Assodales, Inc. II II II 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Park Newport Apartments Slide Modification 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: Jay Garcia Planning Dept. (949) 644-3206 4. Project location: Along the coastal bluffs above Back Bay Drive and below apartment complex, City of 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: Residential / Open space 7. Zoning: Multi -family / Recreational and Environmental open space 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessarv.) 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coastal Commission - Coastal Development Permit 8/17/99((P:1PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 3-1 LSAAssociales, Inc. I F I n ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems 11 Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic 11 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: aI find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEG- ATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ElI find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ElI find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation mea- sures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ElI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEC- LARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are unposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Jay Garcia Printed Name City of Newport Beach For 8/17/99((P:U'NP830\stideisnd.wpd)) 3-2 H LSA Associates, Inc. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than t significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) `Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Signifi- cant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed -in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. I 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 8/17/99<(P:1PNP830\slideisnd.wpdH 3-3 LSA Associates, Inc. Less Than Significant Potentially SignificantImpact withMitigation Incn,pomted Less ThanSignificant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited El a Elto, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of El El Fx Elthesiteanditssurroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would El El El' EZadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether im- effects, pacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evalua- tion and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as'an optional model to use in assessing im- pacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of El RXStatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pre- pared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict existing zoning for agricultural use, or a William- with El Elson51Actcontract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to El EltheirFxlocationornature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? es- 3. AIR OUALITY -- Where applicable, the significance criteria tablished by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tions. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an El 51 Elorprojectedairqualityviolation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria Elpollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisnon -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1 8/17/99KP:\PNP830ls1ideisnd.wpd)) 3-4 I LSA Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 III i 1 1 i 1 1 1 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra- tions? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habi- tat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensi- tive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than significant Potentially Significant withMitigation Less ThanSignificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El El 51 El El El El El b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other El Elsensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologi- cal resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ef- fects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Fx-1 0 0 El El El Ed R El El 51 8117/99((P:\PNP830k11deisnd.wpdH 3-5 1 I LSAAssocia(es, Inc, Potentially significant Less Than significant Withbhtigafion Less ThanSignificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most issued by Ed 0recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Ge- ology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 Fx1 0 3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 4) Landslides? 0 0 F b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 Fx1 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that El awouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheproject, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life El 0 51 or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 0 Ftanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswheresewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ma- terials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely haz- ardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 OD 0 0 Cl 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd>> 3-6 LSA Associates, Inc. t L 1 1 II Less Thansignificant Potentiallysignificant Impact with MitigationIncorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the in El ElprojectFxJresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworking the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted El El Edemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or El EldeathElFxinvolvingwildlandfires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge require- Edments7 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substan- be EDtiallywithgroundwaterrechargesuchthattherewouldanetdeficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level ( e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run- off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capac- ity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or pro- vide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? INS g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on El afederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMapor other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El impedeorredirectfloodflows? IN- 00e D El Fix] El D El El El Eil 8/ 17/99<(P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 3-7 LSA Associates, Inc. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9. - LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than significant m6gation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El El El 51 a) Physically divide an established community? a b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of Elagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject (including, but not El Elan limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)- Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural El 51communityconservationplan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 11. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordi- nance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t Ed El D 51 51 EJ 1-1 El F 8/17/99«P:NPNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 3-8 LV Assoclales, Inc. Less "an significant the Potentially significant Impact With MitigationIncoryoratcd Less nan significantImpact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would El ElprojectFxJexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareato texcessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly indi El FxJforexample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or - rectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infra- structure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating Eltheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere? Displace numbers of necessitating the con- c) substantial people, EZstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere? 13. SERVICESPUBLIC -- a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered gov- ernmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern- mental facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? 2) Police protection? 3) Schools? 51 4) Parks? S) Other public facilities? 51 II 14. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and El Elregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthatsubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be acceler- ated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the El El Elconstructionorexpansionofrecreationalfacilitieswhichmight have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 8/17/99«P:\PNP8301slideisnd.wpdN 3-9 LSA Associates, Inc. Len Than Signiacant Polendally with Less Than significant Wigation Signifcant No Impact Inwtpomled Impact Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the FXexistingtrafficloadandcapacityofthestreetsystem (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersec- tions)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service Fxstandardestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagement agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an in- in El acreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultssub- stantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp Fxcurvesordangerousintersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Fxl f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? FxI g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable F] Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con- Fxl struction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drain- age facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded FxJ entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider FXIwhichservesormayservetheprojectthatithasadequatecapac- ity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ac- FxIcommodatetheproject's solid waste disposal needs? 8/17/99(LP9PNP830lslideisnd.wpd>> 3-10 LSA Associates, Inc. P, 1 C g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commu- nity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan- gered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fu- ture projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less ThanSignificant Potentially With Less7han Significant Ntigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 El El El Fx_1 El El El Fix] 8/17/99((P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd» 3-11 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4.1 AESTHETICS Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City's General Plan Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect significant public views. The applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map. Protect and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recre- ation and Open Space Plan Map. Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on pri- vate property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and de- signed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not in- development on any site. tended to prohibit coastal 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic and natural value. 8/17/99KP:U'NP8301stideisnd.wpd)) 4-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA Assoctates, Inc, Environmental Checklist Responses a) b) c) Would the proposed project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegeta- tion became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surround- ings? Less than Significant Impact The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. There- fore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 8/17/99((P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-2 III L LSA Associates, Inc. Id) Create anew source of substantial light or glare Which would adversely affect day or night- time views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 1 1 1 8/17/99(LPAPNP8301s11 LSA Associales, Inc. 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Environmental Checklist Responses As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: a) Convert Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion offarmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpdN 4-5 LSA Associa(es, Inc. 1 4.3 AIR QUALITY Existing Setting The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Qual- ity Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Environmental Checklist Responses Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Qual- ity Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less titan Significant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emis- sions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment haul- ing materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- 1 ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil 1 disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: 8/17/99<(P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd>> 4-6 I LSA Assoctales, Inc. 1. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 2. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: 1 i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 3. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. 4. At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. 8117/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)> 4-7 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 5. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including release of emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD's criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitiga- tion Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than signifi- cant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the el- derly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecologi- cal preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to air- borne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equip- ment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 4-8 LSA Associates, Inc. Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. J LJ U LSA Associates, Inc. I 1 I 1 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: a. Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; b. Riparian areas C. Freshwater marshes d. Saltwater marshes e. Intertidal areas f. Other wetlands g. Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and South- ern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper rail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to I8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpdN 4-10 1 LSA Associates, Inc. use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February i through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural commu- nity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condi- tion. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd» 4-11 LSA Associates, Inc. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state, Cur- rently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within New- port Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve.has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. 2. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. be- low. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area 1 constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environ- ment. 8/ 17/99«P:\PNP830\siideisnd.wpd» 4-12 LS9 Associates, Inc. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a devel- opment plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological re- sources at the site. J7 Conflict with the provisions can adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. U 1 I I 1 8/17/99((P:\PNP830ls1ideisnd.wpd)> 4-13 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the t Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicin- ity of the project, including the adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City's LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: I a) I 1 I Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 8/17/99(tP:1PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-14 LSAAssociales, Inc. t b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result inany significant impacts to paleontological resources. fd) Disturb any human remains? t 1 1 1 1 No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 8/ 17/99«P:\PNP830\sl ideisnd.wpdN 4-15 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.6 GEOLOGYAND SOILS Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 3) Rupture of a known earthquakefault? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. 4) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1 1 1 1 Less Than Significant Impact The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles south- west of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is consid- ered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. S) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seis- mic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-16 1 I LSA Associates, Inc. 6) Landslides? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a "critical estuary" habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construc- tion activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertiliza- tion); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollu- tion Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:' State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for Na- tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-17 LSA Associates, Inc. 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property bound- aries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands'), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topog- raphy, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. 1 1 1 1 1 The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; C. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; C. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in storm - water discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 8/17/99«P:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-18 1 LSA Associates, Inc. different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after con- struction. 1 1 t 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulch- ing, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sedi- ment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all signifi- cant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The dis- charger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as nec- essary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City ofNewport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 8117/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-19 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.7 HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS Environmental Checklist Responses a) b) c) d) Would the proposed project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all. local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursu- ant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\sl ideisnd.wpd)) 4-21 LSA Assoctates, Inc. No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazardfor people residing or working in the project area? 1 No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazardfor people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated-to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. 8/17/99((P.,\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)) 4-22 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.8 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted develop- ment standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4.6 and adher- ence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? Less Titan Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. There- 8/17/99((P:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)> 4-23 LSA Associates, Inc. fore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. n Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 1 1 Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items a) and c) above. Therefore, impacts re- lated to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. There- fore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. lr) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item g) above. 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-24 LSA Associates, Inc. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item g) above. j) Inundation by seiclre, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 1 1 1 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.ivpd)) 4-25 LSA Associates, Inc. I i 1 1 I 4.9 LAND USEAND PLANNING Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. I8/17/99((P:1PNP8301slideisnd.wpd)) 4-26 LSA Associates, Inc. I t H I 1 1 1 4.10 MINERAL Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delin- eated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 8/17/99<(P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-27 LSA Associates, Inc. 1 4.11 NOISE Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project result in: a) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess ofstandards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standard of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. b) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne nosie levels would not be significant c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the pro- ject, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the pro- ject, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 1 8/17/99«P:\PNP830\siideisnd.wpd)) 4-28 I LV Assoclates, Inc. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Titan Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport's 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 0 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, there- fore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. n 1 C 8/19/99(<P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)) 4-29 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.12 POPULATIONAND HOUSING Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either di- rectly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to popula- tion growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating tine construction of replace- ment housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. There- fore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. t 1 LI 1 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd)> 4-30 C LV Assoclates, Inc. 4.13 PUBLICSERVICES Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, needfor new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or otherperformance objectivesfor any of thefollowingpublic services. 1) Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2) Police protection? No Impact The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4) Parks? No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 8/17/99(<P:\PNP830\slideisndvvpd)) - 4-31 LSA Associates, Inc. S) Otherpublicfacilities7 No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 1 CIS 1 n I I I I I I I I I t8/17/99«PAPNP8301s1ideisnd.w LSA Associates, Inc. 4.14 RECREATION Environmental Checklist Responses a) Would the proposed project increase the use ofexisting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of tyre facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no signifi- cant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restor- ing the slope to its natural condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. I 1 8/17/99«P:\PNP830lslideisnd.wpd>> 4-33 LSA Associates, Inc. I 1 t 1 1 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Environmental Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less titan Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 8/17/99((P:\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)> 4-34 1 LSA Associates, Inc. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. 8/17/99((P.,\PNP830\siideisnd.wpd» 4-35 IJ M Associates, Inc. I 1 1 1 I C I 1 4.16 UTILITIESAND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Checklist Responses Would the proposed project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable California Regional Water Quality Control Board?? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. There- fore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. There- fore, there are no impacts on water supply. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project Is anticipated demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 8/17/99KP:\PNP8301slideisnd.wpd» 4-36 ISAAssociates, Inc. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 8/17/99KP:1PNP830lslideisnd.wpdH 4-37 I LSA Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 C' 1 1 4.17 MANDATORYFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Checklist Responses a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major proceeds of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vege- tation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are consider- able when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide's instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 1 8/17/99«P.\PNP8301.slideisnd.wpd>> 4-38 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.18 EARLIERANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 1 a) Earlier analyses used Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan 1 t b) Impacts adequately addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpo- rated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the pro- ject Not applicable. 8/17/99«P:NPNP830lslideisnd.wpdN 4-39 LSA Associates, Inc. 5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING REPORT PREPARATION CITYOFNEWPORTBEACH Jay Garcia, City of Newport Beach Planning Department APPLICANT Andy Dodge, Park Newport Apartments 8/17/99((P.\PNP830\slideisnd.wpd)> 5-1 LSA Associates, Inc. 6.0 REFERENCES City of Newport Beach, 1988. General Plan - Land Use Element. Adopted by the Newport Beach City Council, Resolution No. 88-100. October 24. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January 9. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999.GnatcatcherSurveys onBluffBelowParkNewportApart- ments. May 25. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July 1. t 1 1 1 8n7 LSA Assocfales, Inc. ATTACHMENT A GNATCATCHERSURVEYS 1 1 1 1 1 8/17/99«P:1PNP830klideisnd.wpd» 6-2 LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Principals 1 1 Rob Baden Sheila Brady Les Card David Clore Ross Dobberteen Steve Granbolm Richard Harlacher Rager Harris Art Homrighamen Larry Kennings Laura Lefler Cari dlyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Anthony Perrot Rob Schonholiz Malcolm J. Sproul Lloyd A Zola Associates James Baum Connie Calica Tung.cben Chung, Ph.D. Steven W. Conkling 1 1 1 n Gary Dow Jack Easton Richard Erickson Kevin Fincber Frank Haselton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Malamat Sabrina Nicholh M. W. 'Bill' O'Connell Deborah Pracilto Amy Skewes-Cox Lynette Stanchma Jill Wilson O'Conner LSA May 25,1999 Mr. Loren Hays US Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Dear Loren: Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the completed survey forms are attached for your review. The six surveys were made one week apart, except between the fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly as possible so that it is completed, including the revegetation of the slide area, before the onset of the winter rains. 'They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff and out the away the cryptogamic crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is in- stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding the permit process. 5125/99((P:1PNP8301gnatsurveyltr.wpd)) One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 949 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Irvine, California 92614-5981 Facsimile 949 353-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvine.lsa@Ira-assoucrom LSA Associates, Inc. Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. If you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at 949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 0j0 M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Restoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar & Associates Kevin Culbertson, Culbertson and Adams Attachment 5@5/99«P:\PNP830\patsurveyltrwpd>> 2 II II II Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVRr FORK Site: / far /i F b i h/v+u n . .T a Investigators: e, Date: S.2/ Starting Time:, ,' / S Stopping Time: % !SO Conditions (Veather 5 Temperature): Start: -2 a C , Stop: K 3 cX-v Species observed: CAGN / CAWR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. C.NGe X/ lawce,1 osnieG. 2.. /Y C. »yEy^Cc.S ?D 3. , 1. ,r up-) 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 /35-,660 >6 Other important plantse e r a /p/Tc Comments: Use Orange County s Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by dsJohnGrayandDavidBramletandMethoused to Survey the Vegetation of Orange a,..^,, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb lover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. mf II 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS) CONDUCTED BY' &,//Cf t"iersis PROJECT 1. Location of the survey area: 2. lisscrlptbn o} survey methods: How frequently waf-tapb vocalization used (it at sin: 4. Total number of surveys: Dete s Bfo at s W her Ts ralure Act" Surveyed Per l3kilogist Per Da Route Used 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s).' Number Sez T.-Provide a c survey area: 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s)-! Number ! rl dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the See map for locallon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, independent juvenile, dependent juvenye, recently t (edged juvenye, nestling, and unknown. Pa 1 s M Site: Inves Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped Joe. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVBZ FORM 04 tigators: Date: Starting Time: / ,'.g D Stopping Time: A; 2 S Conditions (Veather S Temperaturg): Start: 2— Stop: G 3 A. 4 v Species observed: CAGN / CAVR tNumber observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult /' Independent Juvenile Recently Fledged Juvenile / t Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Z f0 Dominant Plant Rel.C joveer Avg. r/ Heigg hhtt,. j57— c-' l 3. . cir/i C a 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: % bare group: herb cover: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Slope: L N L 9 Other important plants e Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the Vegetation of Ora: A reA Fehr, 1991 oy Jones a ocv&ez Qv-t All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIF NIA GNATCATCNER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY _ PROJECTNAULKs- 1. Location of ilia survey area: 2. description of survey methods: 6. flow ir•quentiy wet taps vocalization used (it at all): OrN '1rl yDP A. Total number of surtrays: e— D e s Sly B t s 3./ C's--•,r Wealhsr c mar Ts lure Aa" Stavayod Par Per Da goule Used 6zo 3 0+yy o %,o-'-. . ccJ/fc.I3/r l------------ b. Gnatcatcher slghting(s):• Humbw Awl Sax 6. Brown-headad cowbird slghting(s)•' Numb -or sax 7. Provide a qualitative description off the plant communitles (Include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to thesurveyarea: Qe c /S"94 Ile Sea map for locatfon(s). Age categories to be used araadull, kidepeWenl juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesting, and unknown. Pa e 1 Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAAR SURV87 FORK c/3ee,1 bo-, b/b/i'S 7e' i .- Sr... .7 reiri.n / C 5y /r/ic"./ re Investigators: /(2., L g2 C-v nZl- Date: sA / Starting Time: '? o Stopping Time: ^7:1 S' Conditions (Weather S Temperature): Start: 'F C ea rr Stop: G., Clec Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals - Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: ppDominant Plant%Rel. Cover 1. Gi7C!/4. ,G 1Or n,CG. d 2. A1 101eyf «s 30 3. v a 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,SO 90 100 Avg. Height. ee / CC/ 2 Poll X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants, Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the vegetation of Ora. 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height? X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. corn.le. 19" COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' , ,> (a ' PROJECT NA. ir , Ar/Y• vj.•-'7 sl c% 1. Location of the surrey area: 2. bescrlptbn of survey methods: L How frequently we* tap* vocalization used (B at &IQ: i. Total number of zurVeys: Data s a Weather Ten4mature Anse Surveyed Per t Per Da Route Used s o co....& 5. Gnatcatcher sighting(s)' Number AM.. _ Sex 6-Brown-headed cowbird stghiing(s) AeeberAwl Sex s 7. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: _ Se e 4 " r ..4_, r,e e- nIf- _ d a fi d J O/, C-Zov _ See mep for iocaiion(s) Age categories to be used are aduM. Independent juvenlle, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nesting, and unknown. Page 1 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURM FORK Site: Investigators: J, Date:_ * Starting Time: /, ; HS— Stopping Time: e Conditions (Weather & Temperature): / Start: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant Rel. Cover A C, c.„e O o 2. osca"s PO 3. i .. , G a nic v.ti 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 5) 100 X gap: % bare group: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 Other important plantsLA22j 9rC/ n,G Comm t s-: Use Orange County Is Habitat John Gray and David Bramlet rn„nty Parks and Open Space S CGCu/ P ion System X herb cover: M vs, y re res 4. TS R hCw dated Ma 01992 prepared by rvnv the Vegetation of Orai All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCNER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY _ J r • •. n PROJECT NA.E` ' 1. Location of (he survey area: 2. beicriptlon of survey tnsthods: 6. Now frequently wai tape Vocalization used (if at aln: 4. Total number of surveys: S. Gnatcatcher slghting(a).` Number Sex T. Provide a c survey area: plant communities s6' 3 e G. Brown -headed cowbird sightings):* Number Sax Route Used dominant species and habitat quality) on and acgaeent to the See map for bcatbn(s). Age categories to be used are aduk, independent juvenile. dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesiNng, and unknown. Page i m m m m)• 7• 0 m I I 1 r 1.1 U 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAW& SUSVET FORM Site: Inve stigators: / ti tied Date: 2 Starting Time: (o1S'D Stopping Time: 9.'/S Conditions (Veath Start Stop: 5 v N c Species observed: CAGN / CAWR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type:. /O tic /— Cheer oo-sc ry b Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. Coe vVrV.cw 0 eef ella—r-G/I 2./Y, A ,1 co S 3. a , 10 I- , a VAn S a e c 2- 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .SO ® 100 X gap: Slope: Flat important Dr 2 iO ts:, S'ee- X bare group:_ 0-10 10-35 X herb cover: 35-60 >60 Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared byJohnGrayandDavidBramletandMethodsusedtoSurveytheVegetationofOra 10, 1993 by Jones 6 Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY - /7. // n ? `, . 1 // • x . PROJECT NA, E`S e/ei®a/s- 1. Locatbn of ihs survey area: 2. beicription of survey rrwthods: t How frequently wai bob vocalization used (it at all): A. Total number of surVsys: L— Dates gb a Weather Ts furs W" &M"d Per Per Da Routs Used 22 q/ X3i//0 G6",7t-/ G y SC 2ui -a .0 WS. Gnatcatcher sighting(s)•! timber Sex 7. Provide a qualitative descdpt of the surveyares: S 6. Brown -handed cowbird sighting(s) m A Sex Include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the See reap for tocation(s). Age categories to be used are aduk. independent j avenge, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nesigng, and unknown. Page 1 A Site: Inves Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad CAGN/CAVR SURVR7 FORK tigators: ell Date: l S" Starting Timer ' 2 S -e" Stopping Time: 7.'iU A Conditions (heather S Temperature): Start: ,S'/ co.. e , L. stop: 'F , Species observed: CAGN / CAUR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: CZ Habitat type:. /u rei:1eL ChPs Dominant Plant rr Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1 1, (:..en G TUrnIt4 d Ord - i' YtT 2. 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 80 (9 100 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants ,e Use John e x• X herb cover: 35-60 60 4 "!•c O++sMUh YG rrld 73 a- Svstem dated Ma 19t prepared by County Parks and Open Space Areas and 'rne Irvine %,umpany rive=-•, ----- ----- 10, 1993 by Jones S Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY PROJECTNA.ti% %tr 1f/ c/et/rD rye 1. Location of (tte survey area:cal- 2. Dsscrtption of survey trtethods: S. Now frequently was taps vocation used (it ataln: Total number of surveys:_ Date s 8 1 s Weather Ts eraturs Act" surveyed For t PerDa Routs Used 1 te ra c%. y 441F 6. Gnatcatcher slghting(s) Number sox S. Brown -headed cowbkd slghting(s):' Number sex See map for location(s). Age categories to be used are aduk, indeperxient juvenile, depmWent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projeefs surroundings.) The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area. The areas to the south, east, CHECKLIST Page 1 and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Agricultural Resources 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise Recreation Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance CHECKLIST Page 2 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Cal I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 1 Javier S. Garcia Printed Name Ib q Date F:IUSERSIPLNIS HARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDINGIPARKNPn%CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 3 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated rVJ I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established 1Z community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use R1 plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 4 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides or mudflows? Potentially Significant Impact J u C LJ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 11 C L 0 Less than No Significant Impact Impact Ef n R1 Ef I'i M 0 0 1z CHECKLIST Page 5 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or 91 the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? V. HYDROLOGY. Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater Rf supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CHECKLIST Page 6 k 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 6) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? VI. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Ef 0 R1 El R1 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3) Result in a cumulatively Ef considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed either individually or 1Z cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency 0 access? 6) Result in inadequate parking 0 capacity? CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, 0 or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on Q( any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on Q( federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? CHECKLIST Page 9 t I Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6) Conflict with the provisions of an Q( adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IX. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a EZ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a EZ locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CHECKLIST Page 10 L A 5) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent incre ambient noise levels in the prc vicinity above levels existing w the project? 4) A substantial temporary or peri increase in ambient noise leve the project vicinity above level: existing without the project? Potentially Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated n X J n C M 701 Al 0 No Impact AI 0 n 55 5 n C L J Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 Police protection? Qj Schools? Q( Parks? Bj Other public facilities? XIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment Q requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? CHECKLIST Page 12 i 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project' projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 1z Ef 0 E 1Z 0 CHECKLIST Page 13 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XVI RECREATION. 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0. Ef Ef Q El 21 CHECKLIST Page 14 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPORMS\NEO-DEC\CKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR — City ofNewport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January, 9, 1990 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air QualityManagementPlan EIR, 1997. 10. South Coast air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 11. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 13. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 14. Grading Plan Review — Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 15. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. 16. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98-061113. July 1, 1999. 17. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9 18. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannin Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonine - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (5001o) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Would the proposed project: I. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plait, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: I. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the snaps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Population/Housing Would the project: I. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ofreplacement !rousing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. C) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:1 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands2), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. Less than Significant Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be mini- mized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will com- ply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is a corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mideatoon Measure No. 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 4 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5. Hydrology Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? site? Less Than Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from.the project to flooding on or off site. 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Ouality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive 10 receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Signi*ant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: i All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 11 b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for 12 the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. 7. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and 13 pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. 14 Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 8. Bioloeical Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper rail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 15 As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February 1 through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The 16 remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, 17 which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Mitigation Measure No. S A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: i. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? is No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less than Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. S. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19 No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Titan Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne nosie levels would not be significant 01 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations NBMC Chapter 10.28). Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise 21 level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? ON No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 13. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment, provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projectes solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 23 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s Genert Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect sigi applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, tc preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natu and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Ope Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develop; 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic a Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily 24 discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less titan Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less titan Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 15. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the M adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitieation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish 26 procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permirsampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could'have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on 27 the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a 01-i beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less titan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 29 60 San Bernardino 60 County sos Los Angeles County 57 71 so \ 91 5 91 '\ Riverside 15 County 39 \ 405 55 Orange 22 L-- 5 \ a6s j5sCounty 24t im i 73 1 0 111 74 1 jI PROJECT a SITE I t• 1 II San Diego County H o , m. 5 8/13/99(PNP830) 0. N LSA Scale in Miles 1 0 3 6 Figure 1 Regional Location O 6 ?i//.lr?y?.< r_SztN,c . Q•r•.ly'" !i ,..` tl ----`- iLind rYA ,.-—;C'_ - 'a: , --_,. ,l J_ ` /7-l!_f., w5 i I ,.^,_., e `' _ ._ o /• iy.;';}"; a{t',.`.`.j. P ')': 'Salt S .•, i; ' wl p s{ i11 97 Is r"+Cfi <: ;: "_5}<,lr .,- - kEvzPorators .; Ip 'r l t'i,,i DR ilfaker } li( `II /-'!r' C!'.i; ;'-:'fi,::`;li(,2',"•ti 'r^, ^.-. ..W - _' wl Pil• 4iF5 /`' ';; b. :. _\ i? ;` ."`%-{atsb,,,2e' t I" 7f a. :• , G l) 1 , j,,,\;'Lh, [ • sgm;;.;: ,::• !% :1 : H J V ti . '' go ' ,, 1 .+. y2 ., a r(;I:r%:<5'.} /;f,..»''/.'18 _ r. • ..f . I• Jo v, ,v R'I 4, \• pae os .. t:,,r-... it .. ,:,Q d 'O '• ; e• N:•... c t:Y:r} .., 1 1 J aT _' :i'} 'r4 `,yf{I • ,:y i i 'S, r,"i'7hff'b', i i i ,R /G :• k 'Q •b1i:a _ '; , i l'Y : 1 y1;ir+yc; •r'Z" : iti . y :`;. o ' O ,. `' I , :. ^"xm.. i t • 1'ii•. V't ui1. •v . _ . tc 1 ? rW ' > Q c.,.4i S .N.S "—L^@ 1 r. Qrons del or `.. 11 •11 'iln.-.i 5.d a ).,. nnseh D Y fi eo- . Y, l+•. i A mot /l y coninx 4,; A Source: USGS 8/13/99(PNP830 ii N LSii r 1 o r •, .."- . •yam: •; _, `c' --i :.. (<\ : .".L,_.•. it a, \ `+ _ 1-2i _ X• 1: . I PARK NEWPORTAPARTMENTS Gn .. Y .p, _,-lYj mil,.->,-`' •JI{ .,,•. ...,, ;( + •, • . 1 7 r'/j: :/ UpperNewpoKBay LEGEND: Slide i LT Scale in Feet L u LSA75 150 Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site o ! MI VIEW t'- _ Sim -• d - `d-..'. . ...{ 14-1 S 4•lLit m t.... nA:MmAir- Boundan ArCK18AYORIV__o_---fit- i / _ adrxe nn[r gyp. _ T -'-" _ — T__.--_ _ ,.. Source: 04 RBF. . -. [ i ? ...: .: i / ' f ' / --- - omnlo sw.w ron wlu 8n3n9(nvr80) N: LSA Scalein Feet Z 0 30 60 Figure 5 Grading Plan F r C,Yp\SC,'... p-_,,. Jj1jL;•R ••, .. •r I: •.:. .: ,:i<n I 'q' .. ,1 -„ ,•`, LEGEND. @(%'7,'./.:.-.,c:.i,rz•,., ,-. •,/r:l;•;::'=T ; avo;G :1 ----'- I Galaxy Park . i r„'.• 2 Eastbluff Remnant fin, •\, -a: ":t1"W`-9 ,II 3 Eastbluff Park / s-,",.,>' \'':?_" ;: '';I':m 1{!•'•-t° "y^`' SaltEvaporators : lyi' r ; i\i BACK mq {\ ?C_.r._y:.,..•.y..:' r'! h _ i r; 7i(t}Unrr'ri ,:io'i; ', yloR III / ':>. 'N•' "'. i9. 0`"4.5, :—`^ _-`=n.-...° — ml• -`' 14, iltZieer IlL,H)',1. {u,, y:.. :.: a '•.., ' C) qji"re yii rt, •`.• I t t iW ',Q I o 4r4-.,, r:. ll... '.._ m y`rtr, %,,i •y. • rona dal Mar , ::i) / n :v • 1' 7 > ([h Scl % i \ 1 1, CI yl . ParY Jj F ,i.+l% •1 Gf H '•', ` h 1j'. :,.a: L ,,_ o it i p(I -- ' "J/ \ -( ;'.__•, •`s <: s:+ BLUFF & SLIDE ! qy. ,`t \ / 73 r a !. REVEGETATION 9°-`. . i'' L 1 4i! ',( Ij li i'%9 5%.-- r•9PGi'\' 1 11 •' II•L•r•..._ M •'` I In JM. ..9ti+" ` •\/ ii N \ D\ 1 'i ./// ` :\ y¢yt:.,\\ •_ J/.?'••-^ ;•• ._, i`' \ i'. 1L ° 4;1>„t f, ' 1 I`rl' .: .lv' . —,.• },. : t "ri•. ." . '.r 1 ivA^;''^•' ' // v t' ( , i`':i .i V '`\ r`%I 1 ` ..l,l\, f ^i= ( I i°,°_/' r ';` .r,H `\ ^, i`' iRY : S ' g ' I\ -•'` . r. _ ,tin;;'><,I,y('.,: , vr,>r_ i , ^••. ' t --._ ti \" t is •T'` '• O'°Ailin '4—iac1= Bhco" :Imn_[[n.y I{'''•, . i"nA`i .la j -- • '. . ' '`, ` '. `` f.. j3` 'Y'.•JI e S II`,'• "I'!\ t/. a \HI:Q ri^ ^c \'/' 7 $ i1P L\ Ti '. sr is Source: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles, "Newport Beach, Tustin &Laguna Beach, Calif." :;/ . r r; '":.+ v (r:' ''% •-; 8/13/99(PNP830) lit N LSD Scale in Feet 1 0 1000 2000 Figure 6 View Locations i • LSA Associates, Inc. Principals Rob Balers Sheila Brady Les Card David Clore Ross Dobberteen Steve Granbolm Richard Harlacher Roger Harris An Homrighmtsen Larry Kennings Laura LaJler Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Anthony Perros Rob Schonholtz Malrobn J Sprout Lloyd B. Zola Associates James Baum Connie Calico Tung-rhen Cbung, Ph.D. Steven W. Conkling Gary Dow Jack Easton Richard Erickson Kevin Fincber Frank Haselton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Malamut Sabrina mrbolB M. W. "Bill" O'Connell Deborah Pracilio Amy Skewes-Cox Lynette Stanchina Jill Wilson O'Conner LSh May 25, 1999 Mr. Loren Hays US Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Dear Loren: Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the completed survey forms are attached for your review. The six surveys were made one week apart, except between the fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly as possible so that it is completed, including the revegetation of the slide area, beforetheonsetofthewinterrains. -They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff and cut the away the cryptogamic crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is in- stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding the permit process. 525/99«P.\PNP830\gnaLsurvcyltr wpd» One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614-5981 6 Telephone 949 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Facsimile 949 553-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvine.Isa@lsa-assoc.mm f LSA Associates, hs. Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. If you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at 949)553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Owl M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Restoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar & Associates Kevin Culbertson, Culbertson and Adams Attachment Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEY FORM Site: Inves Date:- Starting Time: , ,' / S Stopping Time:^7 ! S d Conditions (Weather b Temperature): Start: o l o/ / 0 Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant Rel. Cover AVR. Height C4 , u nicG 2. fi, I ,e Ci..CiCc.,S r (^ 3. t i.- a /, h q v c u p-) 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >6 Other important plants e e e Comments: Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared byJohnGrayandDavidBrletandMethodsusedtoSurveytheVegetationofOraCountyParksandOpenSpaceAreasandTheIrvineCompanyPropertdatedFebr10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be" collected Within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 6 i 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY ./ e.IZ PROJECTNAME. 1. Location of ilia survey area: i besctlpllon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wag tape vocalization used (if at all): ;, „ _ , , , , f r S- 7c d. Total number of surveys: Dates Blolo 1st s We Ila erTemperatureAcres Surveyod Per Blologlsl Pat Day Route Used 1— S. Gnatcatcher slghting(s):• Numbar Ago.. Sex 7. Provide a ( survey area: 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Number Ago.. Sox dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the: See map for locatlon(s). Age categorles to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, neslling, and unknown. s s Page 1 P Site: Inves Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad tigators: ./ ti- well Date: /J ly Starting Time: Stopping Time: ,,7; 2 S Conditions (Weather S Temperature$): Start: G L - /e 0 Stop: _63 C P G Species observed: CAGN / CAAR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant ( A Rel.C oveeir C4/ 4)-Aice, 2. j// / sv e :C C 4 . eCC e -e- 30 % 3. L . c// v y / rnic 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 Other important plants Use Orange County's Habitat John Gray and David Bramlet H es, 70 ,.80 90 100 35-60 herb cover: dated May 1992 prepared by r,.a., the vegetation of Ora All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.•• 1994 COASTAL CALIF9111,11A GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY. r) PROJECTNA, E 1. Location of ilia survey area: 2. tlescrlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wa§ tape vocalization used (if at all): 44 bP Al. Total number of surVays: 6_ rj bete s Blolo Ist s Weather TemTemperature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Route Used spy 9i 3. C-r, o r 3 0 3 e ''/`r 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):' Number Ago.. sex 7. Provide a qualitative description of the surveyarea: 6. Brown-hendod cowbird slghting(s)•! Number Ago.. Sox dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the See map for ,location(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 Y j Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Happed,loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad CAGN/CAVR SURVEY FORK at rt bow h/y /`TS r b>n Jn., l .,cirii ./%C 5; Investigators: Date: Starting Time: GPP Stopping Time: Conditions (Veather 5 Temperature): Start: Temperature): Stop: S:S o f Clec '— Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant((` 1. nce a a/iar nit C}. 2. ......... a Co Ptcs.S 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 6 X gap: X bare group:_ Slope: Flat 0-10 10- 35sOtherimportantplant GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Rel.. Cover d yj 3a 0 70 .80 90 100 herb cover: 35-60 >6 Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared by John Gray and David Bramlet and Methods used to Survey the vegetation of Orange All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. coy.ie,— 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE SURVEY(S) r' CONDUCTED BY , 7/73 ,f;t // / PROJECT NA, E: mac, ir/y r/, P /r c y 1. Location of (he survey area: 2. Descrlptlon at'survey methods: 3. How frequently was tape vocalization used (If at ail): 4. Total number of surveys: fi Dates Blolo Ist s Weather Tom erature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Route Used aor d .S%1Hny/ s—y`f—' 3 f/v /o..C- K— 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):' 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):' Number A Sex Number Age Sax 7. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: - > (2 & s d///-- See map for tocaiton(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 I* Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEr FORM Site: Investigators: Date:-- Starting Time: ; % Stopping Time:;DO /7. Conditions (Weather & Temperature): Start: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant r Rel. Cover Avg. Height Pea G 2. /fr:o exCunPScs,.S 0 O $- a//Pe/ 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 X gap: % bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 other important plants - M ccv c John i5 ( n' /v (rr /"Y C tM in4 GdJ f/i!/ y Y2 rCS c.+%$ LC Yw`W nge County's Habit t Classification System dated Ma 1992 prepared byc..,.e,. tt a vPOPtation of Ora: and 10 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associates, inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' y. PROJECT NA, E 1. Location of the survey area: 2. tlescriptlon of survey methods: 9. How frequently was tape vocalization used (if at all): _ • 0 fs e f 4. Total number of surVeys:_ r Dates 411, 2 `/ 9% Blolo 1st s f3.,// 0 'Cow tee// Weather G v-c, Temperature 5" G ° Acres Surveyed Per Bloloillst Per Day Route Used e, f' /w e 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number A Sax 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Number A a•• Sax 0 7. Provide a qualitative descrlptlo. of a plant communitles-(Incipda dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the survey area: See map for locatlon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently Iledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 ba 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad Site: Inve CAGN/CAAR SMVRr FORM f/ y 4+ stigators: Date: 7 2 Conditions (Veath Start Starting Time: C S D Stopping Time: Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAWR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant, 2./ 3. !.1 i rs C i i f urnicvM 4. Rel. Cover Avg. Height T Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .SO ® 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Plat 0-10 10-35 important plants Use Orange County's Habitat Class John Gray and David Bramlet and H 1993 by Jones b Stokes Associates, 35-60 >60 tion System dated May 1992 prepared by All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY' PROJECT NA, r* 7c 1. Location of khe survey area: 2. Descriptlon of survey methods: a. How frequently was tape vocalization used (If at all): A. Total number of surveys: _6— Dates Blolo ist s Weather Temperature ACTGS Surveyed Per 1310101st par Da Route Used y12 9'% 3.11O C. oa / S-6° 6. Gnalcatcher sighting(s):• Number Age Sex 7. Provide a qualitative descriptiI--n of the plant surveyarea: __ 50e -} S/?9-Sv>- 6. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):• Number Age" Sex include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the See map for locatlon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVEY FORK Site: Inves Date: 6- Starting Timer ' 2 S gIv; Stopping Time: 7.'//0 9,o Conditions ('Weather S Temperature): / Start: 'S Fa./ sv.. e , a a.-e 6 d Stop: 'F 1 92 Affed Species observed: CAGN / CAYR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP No. Individuals Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: /D ( r,ceh!2har v C' Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Av g. Height r 2. i S-G FrrT 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 •SO (0 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Other important plants Use John ts: Parks C 2'*G'* • A f/// •, X• u+,2/H4 ! •G tl+M U»i YGjrA1'e+%j a- rs Habitat Classification System dated Ma 1912 prepared by e,... e rho Vocetation of Ora OVA / a.. 10, 1993 by Jones is Stones nssvciaL=zr "•* All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. y/ 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY PROJECTNA, Lr 1. Location of the survey area: 2. Descrlptlon of survey methods: 3. How frequently was tape vocalization used (if at all): 4. Total number of surveys: _6 • Date(s) Blolo Ist s Temperature Acres Surveyed Per Biologist Per Day Route UsedWeather Ato / / D C"0 v i.7 ,/ j z%1CJ,-- 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number A a" Sex 7. Provide a qualitative survey area: Al, yY, 6. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s):' Number A ' Sax dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the Za See map for location(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent Juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nesiling, and unknown. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. 11. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date A GEOLOGICPROBLEMSTanth) 1. That the project shall nonfarm to the Nabonal Pollution Conditioaof Plan Check Priortotheimiameof Disdiatge Elimination Systena(NPDPS)requ'vrmetds and shall be subject to approval gadntgpearsdProgam Public Works the approval ofthe Public Works Depmtmeotandthe Building Depatnent or mcnitormgeGa Department CftyauthorvedGradingEogtmer. pnortotheissuanxof gradingpeadd 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and PmgrarnmmAamg Public Works oompleted by a registered geologist. The facil'dies shall be inspected during Approval routine monitoring by a tablisbadpriortothe Department ApnlorMayofeadnyear. Themmttsofthbzg3eWmdallbeuNnitt to property owner issuance agrad'mg the City of Newport Beady Public Wets Director for rrwx wbefae June 1. pewit Should it be ddmnh ed that the slope is continuing to sluff; based upon the nsuhs often annual inspectors, £other remedial grading/construction work dull be required as ddemuned by the Public Works Director. All remedial wudcrequ'iredbytbe City shall bemmpletedbyNovember 1 oftbatyeac 3. The constructed facilities -shall be routinely maintained by the Condition of Plan Check and Pmg anion8aing Public Works property own r as dderhhind by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Approval routine monitoring by establislhedgiortothe Department DcpartrneaL property owner issuarhoeofgmding permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures ofthe CiWs grading ordinance and all applicable local Condition of Plan Check Priatotheisshunce of Public Works and State building oodm and seismic design guidelines, including the approval gadingpesmit Department City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). S. BIOIAGICALRESOURCES 5. A certified Ecologist shall oversee the babdat restoration kiting Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanoeof Public Works the nwegatating period and mortar maioterurce and progress Orange approval gadmgpermit Departs art and the condnudion fencing shall be installed alagthe edge ofthe coastal sage scrub Planning Department habitat closed tothe com4udion area prior to the start of construction. The constnhdion fcn=g will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipmadhtothecoaztalsagesaubbab0at Abio o&fanuliarwidr oastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the locatian of the construction fencing. The f ncerg shall be maintained in place throughout mnWnction period and roved only after all construction is completed. All construction enhployroes shall be iratruated not to ester into the coastal sage scrub babitat beyond the coh>SWd m it. NOISE 6. Canstmctien activity shall be l®ued to those hours allowed by Condition of Field Check Priortotheiwancecf BuildingDepaAmeat the CdyofNewportBe%chNoise OnlinanoeSerticnlo28.W approval gad'mgpam@ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MIITGATIONMEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 15. CULTURALRESOURCES 7. Prior to the issuance of a Wading pe®iy the project applicant Condition of Evidence of Priortothei sua nceof Planning Department shall provide written evidence to flia City ofNewpont Beach fled a guyed approval paleontologist retained Wad'ngpenut and Building Dept paleontolcgisthas beearetained W observe Wading activities and salvage and to perform site catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the lee• surveillonce. Wading oonfaence, stall establish procedures for ardrrologicaVpaleaEdogical resource survcWancg and shall establish, in cooperation with the pr6ed developer, procedures far tanp%x4 halting err redirecting work to Permit sanydmg idntificanco, and evaluation of the fossils Ifmajor ardieolopjcaVpaleontologicat resources are discovered, wbwh require long -tam baiting a redirecting of Wading the paleontologist shall report such findings to the projed developer and to the City of Newport Beady. The paleentologist shall dctanme appropriate actions, in coopaa6on with the project develops, whwh enure proper exploration and/or sahWr- Eioc vated8ndsdull be offered to the CtyofNewport Beady or its designee, not a5rst4dinalbasis, TbeapplicaotmayrNahn said Ends ifwritte n assurance ispmvKUthat they will be properly laeservedin Orange County, unless said funds are of spacial significance, or a museum in Orange Coady indica a desire to shady and/or display them attha tmo , m wbidt rasa item shall be dooatedtotheCity, crdesigee These actions, aswell ss fnalmtigatwn and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the Wading penink ibe paleontologist shall submit a following report fm approval by the City much shell include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the few& fund, and present repositoryofthe fosses F:\USERSIPLNVSHARED\I PL ANCOMIPENDINGIPARIINPIIMTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 12, 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 12, 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Ran.121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Tel. No.: 916/445-0613) Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park NewportThe Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope alone the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A. P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Highway Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Multi -Family Residential Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project XX The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation ( including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER NOP Supplement/Subsequent NOT Joint Document Early Cons EIR (Prior SCE No.) EA Final Document 0 Neg Dec Draft EIS Other Dratt/ EIR Other FONSI Local Action Type General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Dev. Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit Community Plan Sue Plan Land Division (Sub -division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect ) 0 Other Grading Permit for slope stability and repair Development Type Residential: Units Acres Water Facilities, Type MGD Office: Sq.R. Acres Employees_ Transportation: Type Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Power: Type Watts Educational: Waste Treatment: Type Recreational 0 Hazardous Waste: Type Other: surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document Acsthetic/ Visual Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality Agricultural Land Forest Land/Fire hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater Air Quality 0 Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian 0 Archeologic/Historic Minerals Wildlife 0 Sod Erosion/Compaction/Grading Coastal Zone 0 Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing Drainage/ Absorption Population/Housing/Balance Toxic/Hazardous Land Use Economic/ Jobs Public Service/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Cumulative Effects 0 Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks 0 Vegetation Other LSA LSA Associates, Inc. To: City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Jay Garcia, Senior Planner Date: September 29, 1999 Project: Park Newport Apartments RMIM Transndtted: o Foryour review o Foryourfiles Atyourrequest Foryourinfornmtion Foryour approval Distribution subject: Slide Modification Initial Study/Neg Dec Project m PNP 830 Date Copies Description 9/29/99 1 City of Newport Beach Environmental Information Form 1 Check for $354 for application fees The above are transmitted., Herewith Under separate cover Ha. General Remarks: Enclosed please find the completed City of Newport Beach Environmental Information Form and a check in the amount of $354 to cover application fees for the Park Newport Apartments Slide Modifica- tion Project. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the project was submitted previously to you under separate cover. If you have any questions please call me at (949) 553-0666. Copies to: Richard Ellis, Gerson, Bakar & Assoc; B'll O'Connell, LSA Bv: Joan Medina. Environmental Analvst J One Park Plaza, Suite 500 VTelephone 949 553-0666 Irvine, California 92614 Facsimile 949553-8076 03/31/94(L.roRMS.TRANS6aT.1W RECEIVED Gary L. Granville Orange County Clerk -Recorder P.O. Box 238 99 NOV 22 A 9 :01Santa Ana, Ca 92702 714) 8344625 t p u , 6 Oa ICE Of THE CITY CLERK V lf/ I 'Y OF VEWPORT BEACH 11vW Nwpok b Vdl OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of "Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Negative Declaration was received, filed and a copy was posted on It remained posted for 20 (twenty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the -County of range G By; 0 \ / rivv Deputy The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of gh county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a peridd of 30 days. The notice regysgdpursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a nerind of 20 days. unless otherwise reauired by law to be posted for 30 days. -The County Clerk shall post notices w All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency ***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead, agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** a:\eir\eir2Ody) CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach (949) 644-3200 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FH.ING Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the $38 filing fee. Please stamp one copy "Posted/Filed" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Javi r S. Garcia, enior Planner POSTED OCT 0 8 1999 GA RANVIL , Clerk -Recorder By DEPUTY Date: Octph--', 12, 1999 F:\ USERSIFLMHAREDUFORMSNEQ•llEC04.COVRMEM Filed in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder 38, 00 19998501116 08;55am 10/12/99 856 6251013 06 52 Z01 1 38.00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTEDNewportBeach, CA 92658-8915r7 (949) 644-3200 O C T 0 8 1999 NEGATIVE DECLARATIONc . M vo.lE To: F am: City of Newport BeB I DEPUTY Planning Departmen Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) FxxCounty Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 IPublic review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 I Name ofProject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and Iona -term performance. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. t- A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Q•(ltdrt /"^' Date to 'Lv L5 / Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLN\,SHARED\I PLANCOMNENDING\PARKNP'ANEGDEC California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region will!ton .Hickox Internet Address: littp://www.swrcb.ca.gov Secrelaryfor 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3339 Environmental Phone (909) 7824130 • FAX (909) 781-6288 Prolectios November 10, 1999 Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEDEPARTMENT CITYNOFI NEWPORTNG BEACH N0V 17 1999NMPM 71819 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SLOPE STABILITY/REPAIR WORK GRADING PERMIT) — PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS Dear Mr. Garica We have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration document for this project referenced above. There are some inconsistencies with the information documented in the environmental checklist and the explanation sections of the document regarding environmental impacts associated with Geology and Hydrology. The following items are the inconsistencies discovered in the document: In the Hydrology section on page 7 of,the environmental checklist, environmental impacts 3 and 4, which are associated with the alteration of existing drainage pattern that may cause soil erosion and runoff, are marked "No Impact" and "and "Less than Significant Impact." However, the explanations that address 3 and 4 on page 9 illustrate "Less than Significant" and "No impact." In the Geology and Soils section on page 6 of the environmental checklist, the environmental impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil (2) are marked Less than Significant Impact." Consequently, the explanation that addresses soil erosion includes mitigation measures, which are illustrated on page 8; therefore, the environmental impact regarding soil erosion or loss of topsoil should be checked Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the environmental checklist section of the document instead of "Less than Significant." These inconsistent items mention above need to be address. If a Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit is required for the project, an application for a 401 Water Quality. Certification must be submitted to the Regional Board office. California Environmental Protection Agency co Recycled Paper Javier S. Garica City of Newport Beach Planning Department 2 - November 10, 1999 If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3221. Sincerely, Tom B. Mere9 illano Planning Section cc: Mosie Boyd - State Clearinghouse File:O\\RB8WEBSR\VOL3\USERS\Planning\tmeregil\CEQA Comments\Neg-Dec & Mit Neg Dec-Comments\Oct 99\Newport Slope Stability 10-18-99.doc California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and ResearchaStateClearinghouse Gray Davis STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 GOVERNOR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. EOX3044 SACRANIENTO, CA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse.html November 12, 1999 Javier S. Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: 1 Park Newport SCH#: 99101045 Dear Javier S. Garcia: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFwpnPT PEACH AM NOV 18 '1999 PM 718 19110111112,112,314,516 k Loretta Lynch DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on November 10, 1999, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's eight -digit State. Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded foruse in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the.enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 99101045 Project Title 1 Park Newport Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type neg Negative Declaration Description The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project XX The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and Installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the Interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. Lead Agency Contact Name Javier S. Garcia Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949 644-3206 email Address 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 City Newport Beach Project Location Fax State CA Zip 92658-8915 County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Parcel No. 440-132-52 & 440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Township Range Section Proximity to: Highways West Coast Highway Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Land Use Multi -Family Residential Base Projectissues Archaeologic -Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Vegetation; Water Quality; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; Department of Conservation Date Recelved 10/12/1999 Start of Review 10/12/1999 End of Review 11/10/1969 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Gommor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612.0601 November 4, 1999 Javier Garcia, Senior Planner IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH# 99101045 Planning Department ND 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 'Log # 636 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) — Park Newport Apartments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.on the Negative Declaration ND) for the Slope Stability and Repair Work proposed project for the Park Newport Apartments Complex. The proposed project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay and will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comments. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our. State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. S' c ely, Robert F.,Jo e , C of Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONSy City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannin Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (509o) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Would the proposed project 1. Physically divide an established community? d No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would the project: 1. ConvertPrime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance ( Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Population/Housing Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement !rousing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: I. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra, 1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of dQ structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. C) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No -Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction 4 CZ activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items:' A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands'), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, 'stored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 23 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. a-J-cwh A. jv"tcu.•Jc (?nln.tl p t"tbc i+ /acdvf?,ov tey ffinn Viguij2o ItHntpaet. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be mini- mized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will com- ply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on. or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is a corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. a<( 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available<for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. / That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No._2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 4 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5. Hydrology Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? as No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? Less Than Significant Impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirely planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. C, 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a,levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Ouality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive El a7 receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: i All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the followingtmeasures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of thtee months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: i On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less titan Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for 12 a9 the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and 13 30 pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. 14 Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 8. Biological Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saltgrass, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper rail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgrass; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered raze or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP, 1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less titan Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 1F7 As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will -'prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February 1 through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The 16 35 remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegelation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal Califorliia gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, 17 3y which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Mitigation Measure No. 5 A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? IU 35 No Impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of bazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar High School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. 5. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19 3 No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome nosie levels would not be significant 20 37 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? x No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations NBMC Chapter 10.28). Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise 21 1000 level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed byconstruction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. MfNaatlon Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? 22 J No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 1 13. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from theproposedproject. 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not require the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. y0 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s Gene Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect si applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of nat and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Ope and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Of Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, an with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines fror and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develol 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily RM discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. 15. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine oriented economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Bay area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the 25 Q adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. f City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish 26 I procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public fromslope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on 27 yq the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the construction'or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findines of Sienificance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper tail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will, cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a 28 ZI5 beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EB2, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063[c][3][D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 29 y6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following responses were received in regard to the posted Negative Declaration: 1. Acknowledgment of Receipt/ Distribution List Office of Planning and 2. Public Works Dept. City of Newport Beach Comments on Con5litions of Approval Dept. sponsibili Conditions of approval/Mitigation Measures No. 1, 2 and 3 hav been revised as follows: 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elim7 ation System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Deputy C! Manager or designated Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading glneer. 2. An annual inspection ofthe completed facilities shall be completed y a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year T results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Building Depar ent for review before June 1. Should it be determined That the slope is continuing to sluff b ed upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construchon work ha be required as determined by the Building Department. All remedial work required by the Ct shall be completed by November 1 of that year. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained y the property owner as determined by the City ofNewport Beach Building Department. 3. CalTrans: bled 4. California Dept. of Fish and Game Comment Letter attached Letter from the Dept. of Fish and me raised concerns related to the coastal sage scrub habitat to be removed revegetated and the contingency plans for failure of the process. There wee also concerns related to the road closure, fencing to be constructed anduration of the closure and placement of fencing. Additional condition f approval have been incorporated into the mitigation monitoring table nd will be satisfied prior to issuance of the grading permit and during tho course of construction and in conjunction with the multi -year monitoring p ogram. Conditions of Approval 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as follows have been incoraforated 5. 1 Prior to issuance ofthe grad! permit the applicant shall provide, a. a site survey to quanta the t and revegetation amounts of coastal sage scrub involved. b. a revegetation plan detailing the timing ofplanting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi year monitoring scheme and a detailed contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. c. a plot plan showing the location offenciug (both chain link; orange construction fencing and silt fence), the location of property lines, right-of-way lines and list of ownership of adjacent parcels to the subject location. If any portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will provide to the Cityproof ofpermission from the State forfence placement and construction access to the site and the accompanying certificate of liability as approved by the State in the granting of access. 5. 2 Prior to the closure ofBack Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate with, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Engineering Division) and the Department of Fish and Game for road closure permit and Haul Route Permit. The closure plan shall include some public relations information or sign program to no* fy users ofBack Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road closure. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City shall enforce this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department of Fish and Game so that they can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. 5. 3 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant shall obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federallydisted California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director By Javier S. Gar •ia Senior Planner cc: Building Director Negative Declaration File Attachments: Acknowledgment of Receipt/Distribution List, dated October 22, 1999 CalTrans Letter, dated November 4, 1999 Memorandum from the Manager of Development Services, dated November 9, 1999 Letter from Dept. of Fish and Game, dated November 12, 1999 RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATIONMEASQRES Action Verification Verification Person Date 4. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS(Pirth) 1. That the project shall mnt'omn to the National Pollution Conditionof Plan Check Piartotbeis-, Of DolargeEd"wmabon System(NPDES) mclu'veavnts and shall be whjestto approval gadmgpenmhProgam Public Wodos The approval of The Deputy City Manager or designated Department and the monrt«mgesablisbed Department NddmgPkpanhn wCityautltorwdGaadmg&ivner• priortotheissuanceof gadinglermit 2. An anund inspectim of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and Pmgammonh mg Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The fatilitm shall be inspected dung Approval routine monitoring by establisbadpricrmthe Department AprilorMayofeactnyean. Thereaftoftheimpectionsallbesubmittedto property owner issuance ofgadmg the City of Newport Beach &ddmg Department for review before Jame 1. permit Should it be determined flat the slope is continuing to shin lased upon the results of the annual mspectiom further remalial gradrWoonsfixticn wok shall be required as ridernured by the Building Department All remedial workreViredbythe City shall be completedbyNovember I ofthatyear. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by the Condition of Plan Check and Progammooitamg Public Works property ownr as determined by the City of Newport Beady Building Approval routine monitoring by establishe<Igiortothe Department Department. property owner issuaoceofgsad'mg permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures ofthe City's grading ordinance and all applicable local Condition of Plan Check Priortotbe issaabeof Public Works and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the approval gad'mgpermit Department City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Prior to issuance ofthe grading permit the applicant shalt provide written approval ofthe erasion control plan by the Regional Quality Control Board. S. BIOIAGICALRESOURCES 5. A ratified Ecologist shall oversee, the labiat restoration dining Condition of Plan Check Pricrtotheissauoeof Public Works The megata¢mg period and monitor maintenance and pr g Orange approval gradmgpe®rt. Department and the cusoictimfoEing shall be instdWakogthe edge ofthe coastal sag: scrub Planning Department habitat closesttothe construction area prior tothe start of construction. The cunstmch n fnc.%ng will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipmrrtiototbcoonstal sage scrub habitat Abido&familiarwith coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing The kncmg stall be maintained in place throghout wnstnnctiam period and removed only afiar all wmtructicn is completed All construction employees shall be instructed art to cow into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the 0011structionlencinz Page 1 AS REVISED NOVEMBER is, im 4Y MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 5.1 Riortoivaaceofthegaftp=*tbeapplicaot"poW Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Public Works Approval gaftpermit Department and the a a sitesurveyto quantitythetake andrevegelatien amounts ofooatial sage Plamin Department scrub involved. b. an:vegetebmplmdeidmglbetimmgofoaftg.spaoestobeplmted andthe'nr size (seed orcaotainwaodc)and amuffi-ymmmrtahgsdane andaddaikdcontmgaayplm mtheevmttMmxgetatimanotp=cssfd a a plot plan showrog the location of fmvg (bath dam link, orange construction fmcmgand sift fence),the location ofpropetyl'mm, rigtofway lines and list of ownesldp of adjamt parcels to the mI0d location. If any portion oftheproposedfencingis located on the State of Cal wri,Ecological Raerve, the applicant will provide to the City pcoot'ofpnnission&omthe State for fence placement and conduction aroem to the site and the accompanying catilicate of liability as approved by the State in the g2Ring ofacres 5. 2 Prior to the closure of Back Bay dries the applinrt shall coordinate Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuarceof Public Works with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department (Traffic Approval gnad'mgpeml Department and the Engireabgl) iv m)wAthe DVmti ntofFnhmdGamfmrwddosum Planing Department pemnrt and Haul Route Permit. The ckMame plan shall include some Public relatimv infonmabon or s gaprogram to notify urns of Back Bay Drive to Iduanthem ahead oftime tlatthe mad closure. h should date the rcasons why, the suggested time lire of the project and when the road may be opened fwthea use. The Cityshall anfome tlris closure so that uses donut acme new trails around the barricades to the detriment of1M habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please inordinate my road closures with the Department ofFishand Game so llattlay can naiAain aooem on Bads Bay Drive for management and annancy purposes during the pojat's coostrucfm 53 Prior to removal of my coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant shall Condition of Plan Check Ptiortothe issuanceof Public Works dKamwritten wovakfiomthe Federal Government (U.S. Fish andWddlit'e approval @adiogpemrit Depatmmt and the Swice) relative toremoval ofooestal sage scrub babdat being ail'i-dbytte Planning Department Fedaslly-EstedE CaU m a. goatcatchm Consultation and ultimate amha'na5m from the Service n a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. Page 2 AS REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 1999 Md RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATIONMEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 11. NOLSE 6. Construction activity shall be 1®ited to those hems allowed by Condition of Field Check Friortotheissusance of Building Department the City ofNewpmtBeach Noise Ordinance Soction1028.040 approval gadmgpamrt 15. CULTURALRESOURCES 7. Prior to the issuance of a gadmg permit, the project applicant Condition of Evidence of Priortotheissnanceof Planing Depakinent Shall provide vaium evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified approval paleontologist retained gad'mgpamrt and Building Dept paleontologist hasbastreta'vned to observe Wading activities and salvage and to perform site catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pro- surveillance. gadnhg caafamm. shall establish procedures for archmlogicaVpakodologcal resource smveilhoce, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer procedures for temporarily halting or redrterSmg wok to Front sampling iden ificatim, and evaluation of the fossils Ifmajor resawesare&wNered,which requfie laVe m hahmg or redirecting of Wading the paleontologist shall report such findaW to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beads. The paleontologist shall daamme appropriate actions, in coopaation with the pmjet developer, wfiidt ehsuro proper exploration anNa salvage. E7 VdWSodsshallbeofferedtothe City ofNewport Beach, or itsdesgna, on a Srst4efusal basis. The applicant may retain said £nods if vvxittm asaumrhoe isprovidedthat they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said fords are of spacial si or a mhsa>m in Orange Canty indicates a desire to study and/m display them at the t®q in which case itaa6 shall be dahatedto the City. ordesgme. These actions, as well as find mitigation and dispositiOn of the moza . shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Mich. Prior to the final of the gadhng Pernik the pakatotogist shag submit a followup, report for approval by the City which stall include tin period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils farad, and present repository of thefossils F,.\ USERS\PLN\SHARED\1PI.ANCOM\PENDING\PARENPTgATMSRTAB Page 3 AS REVISEDNOVEMBER 18. 1999 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POSTED N 0 V 17 1999 GARY L. 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949)644-3200 Clerk•RecorderNOTICE OF DETERMINATION Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA, 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of 17eterminanon in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name ofProject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: SCH# 99101045 Javier S. Garcia 949 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reportsspecifiedinthisHRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. This is to advise that the City ojNewport Beach has approved the above described project on November 15. 1999 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency - Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project - will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. - An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were - were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations - was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were - were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200. r Javie S. Garcia, Senior Planner FSlGa In L. G anvcouil l Of orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clark/Recorder r 19998501252 MUM 11/11h9 856 6259319 06 52 Z03 1 1288.00 RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date 4. GEOLOGICPROBLESIS(Pacth) 1. That the project shall ennferm to the National Pollution Conditionof Pisa Check Priortotheissusaoeof Discharge Elimination System(NPDPS) regcremerts and shall be subject to approval vad"mgpemfd Program cWarks the approval of the Deputy City Manager or designated Department and the monitamgestabl ni Buttd'mgDepmtnatmCityaWh=mdCmAMFmg mw priartotheisuaoceof @aftpmna 2. An annul inspection of the completed f cilities shall be Conditionof Plan Check and Program Public Works completed by a registered geologisL The facilities shall be impacted during Approval routine monitoring by established tothe Department April orMayofeacnyear. Theresults ofthe inspection shall be submitted to property owner issuance the City of Newport Beach Budding' DepeMrrt for review before hue 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to shin based upon the results of the amain inspections, further romedial grading/constuctim work shall be required w determined by the Budding Ikpamnert. A0 remedial workrequ'nedbytheCitysball be conoctedbyNovembo 1 ofth ayear. 3. The constructed facilities shall be routinely na'v&AW by the Condition of Plan C and Pnogramuonrtaing Public Works property ow>g as determined by the City of Newport Beach Building Approval routine 'toing by establishedpiortotbe Department Department owmer issuarnceofgrad'mg permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures ofthe City's grading ordinance and all applicable local Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisumnce of Public Works and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the approval gndingpemrit Department City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sectioru). a. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES 5. Acerified EcDk& shall oversee the habitat restoration daring Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuarecof Public Works the revegatatiog period and monitor maintenance and progress, approval grad'mgpermrt Department and the castes mfercv shallbemralkdatntheedgeofthec=Wsage Planning Department habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start ofmastructi The construction fencing will pevat intrusion by constroerim and cgmpmaainto the coa%W sage scrub habitat Abiolog"st .. withooastal sage scrub habitat shall dined the location of the fenc* The Racing shall be maintained in place throughout on period and removed only after all onostmdion is completed.' employees shall be instructed not to enter into the ooias aW scrub habitat beyond the comhudionfencin& 5. 1 Poi rtoissuarceofthngud'mgp=*theapplicaotshallpovidc, Conditionof Plan Check Priartotheissunoeof Public Works Approval gndirgpermrt Department and the a. a site surmyto guntifythetake andrevegdatiaa amounts ofatastal sage Planning Department scrub involved Page 1 6; AS REVISED NOVEMBER 15,1999 RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVEDECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Ve ' tcation MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date b. arevegdmion plan deta iogthetiming of plaiting. specks to be Plaited and their size (seed or container stock) and a nxd&ycw monAaing scheme and a detailed ooatmgmry calm in the evert the nevegetation is ant suoorsAin1 c a plot plan showing the location of fencing (botlt chat lick, orange construction fencing and siltfence),the location ofproperty fins,rightof vay hires and list of ownership of adjacent Parcels to the subject location. If my portion of the proposed fencing is located on the State of California Ecological Reserve, the applicant will Provide to the Ciy proofofPerrmtition fiam the Stale for fence placermnt and construction access to the site and the accongwryhrg certificate of liability as approved bli the State in the granting ofacoess. 52 Prior to the closure of Back Bay drive, the applicant shall coordinate Condition of Plan Check totheissuanceof Public Works with the City of Newport Beady Public Works Depatrmet (Traffic Approval gnadingpermit Depannead and the E Tbami ng Dividm) andit Department ofFah and Game fmroad closure Planning Department permit and Haul Route Permit The clone plan shall include some public relations nd'anWim or sign program to notify uses of Bad: Bay Drive to ial'armifem stead oft®ettattte road daeae. It alrould state the reason why, the suggested time lime of the project and wlrn the mad may be re. Opened fir their user The City shall eni'orce this dawn so that users do not create new trails amuodthe barricades to the ddrintat of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. ).lease oomd'mate any mad doaum with the DepadmentofFishand Game an that they cannubtam access on Bair Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes dunrg the pmjad's construction. 53 Prior to removal of any coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant stall Candid of Plan Check Priortotheiss , of Public Works obtain written approvals from the Federal Government (US. Fah andWildlit'e appro al gad'mgpermh Department and the Service) relative to removal ofmastal sage scrub babdat beingutil'ved bythe Planning Department Fedeta0y4isted Califar is gr#catdrr. Comubaticn and ultimate authorintim ficm the Service is a condition of approval of this Negative Declaration. It. NOISE Lwas, 6. Construction activity shall be linrited to allowed by Condition of Field Check Priortotheissuaoceof Building Department dwCtyofNsrpmtBeachNoiw0rdtaooeSedim102&040 approval 13rading1ennit Page 2 AS REVISEDNOVEMBER 15, 1999 L RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments November 15, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of ResponijbIC Verification MITIGATIONMEASURES Action Verification Verification P n Date 15. CULTURALRESOURCES 7. Ain to the issuance of a grading pemhA, the project applicant Condition of Evidence of Aiertotheissuanoeof Planning Department Shall provide written evidence to the City ofNewpat Beads that a qualified approval paleontologist retained gadmgpemdt and Building Dept paleontologist has 6emretamadto absave gradingactivium adsah-ap and to perform site catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist stall be present at the pre. surveillen tgadiog conkarce, shall establish procedures fw resource sunm_ and shall esfabliSlt, m wopetation with the project developer, procedures for tempor u* halting or redirecting wok to pamR sampling ident'ffication, and evatuaitm of the fossils. lfmajorardedogical/paleartologicai resources are discovered, which requite longterm batting or redwing of grad n& the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer said to the City of Newport Beach The paleontologist shall detenume appropriate action; in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper esplaabon ad/ur salvage Etaavatedfnds shall be offered to the City ofNewpoRBeach, or its dcsighce, on afirstaefusal basis. The applicant may rdam said finds ifwntteh assurance is provided that they will beproperlypreserved in Orange County, unless said fords are of special dgx fkano, or a museum in Orange County indicates a des'ue to 9hdy armor display them at the tiase, in vNc h case itcos shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as food mitigation and disposition of the resomocs, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading pamlt, the paleontologist shall subad a follaw up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of uupedion, a catalogw and analysis of the fossils found, and pnesert repository of the fmtik. Page 3 OAS REVISED NOVEMBER 15,1999 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POSTED 3300N enwport ort Beach, CA 926 8- 9151768 NOV 17 1999 ( 949)644-3200 GARYL. LLE,Cleik-Recorder NOTICE OF DETERMINATION oY To: to From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division Date received for filing at OPR: P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA, 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section. 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: SCH# 99101045 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-32 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description. The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This projectwilloccurintwophases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmentalpermitrequirementsaremet. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reportsspecifiedinthisHRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. This is to advise that the City offewport Beach has approved the above described project on November 15. 199.9 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency = Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project Z will 0 will'not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were = were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations = was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were = were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Planning The final or Negative Declaration 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bearovalis ch, available CA 92658-8915 a949/644-3DDepart- meojectnt 200. ICityofNewportrtBeach, Filec in the county of orange, california Javie S.Garcia,SeniorPlanner Gary L. pranviile, Clerk/Recorder 19998501252 09;04am 11/17/99 856 6259319 06 52 Z03 1 1288.00 r LSh I.M Aaaoclal a, Inc. To: Citv of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner Date. November 16, 1999 TRANSMITTAL Transmitted: o Foryour review Foryourfiles Atyourrequest Foryourinformation Foryour approval o Distribution subject. CDFG Fee Project: Park Newport Apartments Project #. PNP 830 Date 11/16/99 Copies Description Check for CDFG Fee for Environmental Review of Negative Declaration Slope Stability Repair Work, Park Newport Apartments The above are transmitted: Herewith Under separate cover Fria: General Remarks: Enclosed is a check made payable to the County Clerk, County of Orange for required Califor- nia State Department of Fish and Game Environmental Document Review fee. The check is in the amount of 1 250 for review of the above referenced Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please call us at 949) 553-0666. Copies to: By. Joan One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 949 553-0666 Irvine, California 92614 Facsimile 949 553-8076 o3/31/94(:+ronms1rnANSMrr. d) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5, South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue - San Diego, CA 92123 619)467-4201 FAX 467-4239 RECEIVED BY November 12, 1999 PLANNING RN!`NPO T MENT CITY OFEA H Mr. NOV 1 19 9 Javier Garcia, Senior Planner PM City of Newport Beach 7((9 (10 (11(12 (1i2i8(4i8(6 Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration for Slope Stability/Repair Work.(Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments Dear Mr. Garcia: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Negative Declaration regarding the Slope Stability/Repair Work at the Park Newport Apartments Complex located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Department requests the following clarifications be made on the project prior to approval of the grading permit: The Negative Declaration does not quantify the amount of coastal sage scrub vegetation to be removed nor the amount to be revegetated. The document only states that a revegetation ratio of 2.5:1 will be used following the grading work that needs to be done to stabilize the slope. Please quantify both the take and the revegetation amounts. The document should provide revegetation plan details, such as timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi -year monitoring scheme should be proposed. There should be a specified contingency plan in the event the revegetation is not successful. The document discusses the installation of fencing at the toe of the slope. The Department requests the specific location(s) of the fencing (both chain link and the silt fence) in order to determine if the fencing will be on the State's Ecological Reserve property. If it is, the City will need to request authorization for fence placement and for construction access from the Department. Also, the City will need to provide a certificate of liability to the Department for the duration that the fencing is in place. The Negative Declaration also states that there will be no public access -related issues because Back Bay Drive has been closed to the public since the winter of 1997. This is inaccurate. The City removed the barricades and began allowing public access along Back Bay Drive some months ago. This project will likely cause temporary impacts to the public's use of Back Bay Drive. The Department requests that if the City intends on closing Back Bay Drive, it should do some public relations with the users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road will be closed to the public. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City should also enforce Mr. Javier Garcia November 12, 1999 Page 2 this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department so we can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Finally, the document does not state that is has received approvals from the Federal Government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service should be a condition of the Negative Declaration. In conclusion, the Department concurs with the proposed project if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily. The Department sees the slope stabilization and revegetation as a positive impact and a benefit to the species and habitats of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Questions and comments may be directed to myself at the letterhead address, or to Erick Burres, Reserve Manager, at (714) 377-0684. Thank you for the opportunity to -comment on this Negative Declaration. Sincerely, w/ Theresa A. Stewart Senior Biologist Land Management and Monitoring Program cc: C.F. Raysbrook, Regional Manager, San Diego Bill Tippets, San Diego Erick Burres, Huntington Beach John Scholl, Newport Beach Jack Faucher, FWS, Carlsbad STATE OF CALIFORNIA ooF Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse TIMV Gray Davis STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 Loretta Lynch GOVERNOR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-3044 DIRECTOR 916-445-o613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/cleannghouse.html ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: October 22, 1999 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENTTO: Javier S. Garcia CITY OF RE 1ArpORT ['EACFI City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd OCT 2 7 1999 P.O. Box 1768 AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 71819110111112111213141818 RE: 1 Park Newport SCH#: 99101045 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: October 12, 1999 Review End Date: November 10, 1999 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission Caltrans, District 12 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. Ito 0 4a S5"5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BY DISTRICT 12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT3347MICHELSONDRIVE, SUITE 100 CITynF I A/r IRVINE, CA 92612-0661 Fi ')PT (' E'ACH , ate AM NOV, 0 5 1999 PM 71819110111112,112,3141BIg November 4, 1999 Javier Garcia, Senior Planner IGR/CEQA - City of Newport Beach SCH# 99101045 Planning Department ND 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Log # 636 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) — Park Newport Apartments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration ND) for the Slope Stability and Repair Work proposed project for the Park Newport Apartments Complex. The proposed project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay and will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comments. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. eSocely fie,RC of Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR MEMORANDUM November 9, 1999 TO: Jay Garcia FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Park Newport grading After reviewing the subject document, there is one aspect which should be changed. The proposed Mitigation Measures 1,2 & 3 should be rewritten to delete reference to the Public Works Department. MM Nos. 2 3 are most directly associated with the Building Department as they relate to work on private property. MM No. 1 now falls to the Deputy City Manager. (l think he picked up the NPDES program at last night's City Council Meeting.) so] 11/12141999 13:44 6194674239 CA DEPT FISH AND GAM PAGE 05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5, South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 619) 467-4201 FAX 467-4239 November 12, 1999 Mr. Javier Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beacll Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Negative Declaration for Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments Dear Mr. Garcia: The Department of Piste and Game (Department) has reviewed the Negative Declaration regarding the Slope Stability/Repair Work at the Park Newport Apartments Complex located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Department requests the following clarifications be made on the project prior to approval of the grading permit: The Negative Declaration does not quantify the amount of coastal sage scrub vegetation to be removed nor the amount to be revegetated. The document only states that a revegetation ratio of 2.5:1 will be used following the grading work that needs to be done to stabilize the slope. Please quantify both the take and the revegetation amounts. The document should provide revegetation plan details, such as timing of planting, species to be planted and their size (seed or container stock) and a multi year monitoring scheme should be proposed. There should be a specified contingency plan in the evenf the revegetation is not successful. The document discusses the installation of fencing at the toe of the slope. The Department requests the specific location(s) of the fencing (both chain link and the silt fence) in order to determine if the fencing will be on the State's Ecological Reserve property. If it is, the City will need to request authorization for fence placement and for construction access from the Department, Also, the City will need to provide a certificate of liability to the Department for the duration that the fencing is in place. The Negative Declaration also states that there will be no public access -related issues because Back Bay Drive has been closed to the public since the winter of 1997, This is inaccurate. The City removed the barricades and began allowing public access along Back Bay Drive some months ago. This project will likely cause temporary impacts to the public's use of Back Bay Drive. The Department requests that if the City intends on closing Back Bay Drive, it should do some public -relations with the users of Back Bay Drive to inform them ahead of time that the road will be closed to the public. It should state the reasons why, the suggested time line of the project and when the road may be re -opened for their use. The City should also enforce 1111W1999 13:44 6194674239 A Mr. Javier Garcia November 12,1999 Page 2 CA DEPT FISH AND GAM PAGE 06 this closure so that users do not create new trails around the barricades to the detriment of the habitats within the Ecological Reserve. Please coordinate any road closures with the Department so we can maintain access on Back Bay Drive for management and emergency purposes during the project's construction. Finally, the document does not state that is has received approvals from the Federal Government (U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service) relative to removal of coastal sage scrub habitat being utilized by the Federally -listed California gnatcatcher. Consultation and ultimate authorization from the Service should be a condition of the Negative Declaration. in conclusion, the Department concurs with the proposed project if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily. The Department sees the slope stabilization and revegetation as a positive impact and a benefit to the species and habitats of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Questions and comments may be directed to myself at the letterhead address, or to Erick Burres, Reserve Manager, at (714) 377-0684. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Negative Declaration. Sincerely, Theresa A. Stewart Senior Biologist Land Management and Monitoring Program cc: C.F. Raysbrook, Regional Manager, San Diego Bill Tippets, San Diego Erick Burres, Huntington Beach John Scholl, Newport Beach Jack Fancher, FWS, Carlsbad Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A•6214, September 29, 1961, and A•24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City, of Costa Mesa, County of -Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates. October 12, 1999 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 12 , 1999 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration he! been prepared bg theCllyofttlewporteect at theThe Is A oc- on the 2 Dec - and CHECKLIST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS Negati Declaration package Notice of Completion form Negative Declaration form Initial Study checklist and analysis Exhibits/attachments Wigation on monitoring program Public hearing notice (Hearing date: / 38.00 County Clerk tiling fee Concurrence from lead division if not Advance Planning Contact Person: Consultation with applicant regarding mitigation measures Posting period: 10'-12—let +b -12-kej 20 days (no state or regional issues) 30 days (state review required) j Posting locations: CountyClerk 10-12-4 `% Project site (o-tb-49 V City hall to -It-9p Newspaper (, 9 --1 'L- r19 State Clearinghouse ( Notice of Completion+ 10 copies) Direct mail to adjacent property owners and residents Dist ribption: V File A44"L,\ Lead planner Applicant or Ci contactCity Public agencies - - HOAs Private s3ouns L Individuals Notice of Determination (Date filed: ) State Clearinghouse County Clerk Department of Fish and Game fee status Exempt (Notice of Fee Exemption form + $38 filing fee) Not exempt ($ 1250 fee + $38 filing fee) Revised 1/ 21/981/21198-3126/97 F:\Planning\ Users\Shared\lforms\neg-dec\ndchklst MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Garcia(JGARCIA@CITY.NEWPORT-BEACH.CAUS.) FROM: Kevin Culbertson DATE: October 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Contacts Per our cwnver Theresa Stewart U- Associate Wildlife Biologist Dept. of Fish and Game 4949 Vewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Karl Schwing Coastal Program Analyst California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-3402 j:\apps\wp5lnet\jay CPfY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City ofNewport Beach (949) 644-3200 SUBJECT; NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILING se Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the $3nd ¢named at the If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. I Javi r S. Garcia, enior Planner Date: October 12, 1999 F.WSEWLMHARMIFORMS X)-DEC04-COVRMFM FilGaryn`. Granvilcountyle (Clark/Recorderornia POSTED 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111138,00 19998501118 08;55am 10/12/99 OCT 0 8 1999 $56 6251013 06 52 Z01 1 38.00 GA RANVII , Clefaeccoorideet BY v .1 4 '•'x[<n . :N-1T'. '•x1 P .• `_C'ry 't• \L- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 'e O S T E DNewportBeach, CA 92658-8915 j' 949) 644-3200 p C T p g 1999 NEGATIVE DECLARATION QU L. 3MVILLE. To: F om: City ofNcwport Beall F DEPUTY Planning Departmen Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street. Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) F7County Clerk. County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 IPublic review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999' I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the cast side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this FIRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. _ Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California EnvironmentaLQuality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. I-tAcopyoftheInitialStudycontainingtheanalysissupportingthisfindingisQ attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. if you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Qat,ir t Date Javier S. Glucia Senior Planner F:\USERSNLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDMG\PARI NPTNEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949)644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: I Public review period: October 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999 1- Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and Iona -term performance. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. ofAcopyoftheInitialStudycontainingtheanalysissupportingthisfindingis0 attached 13 on file at the Planning Department. The initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. 9&.;. Date t o'k69 Javier S. O rcia Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLMSHAREDIIPLANCOWENDNG\PARKNPI W EGDEC T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM , Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Figure 3 is a site plan of the slide removal and habitat restoration areas. Figure 4 presents site photographs of the existing slide area. A grading plan is shown in Figure 5. A copy of the gnatcatcher surveys report conducted by LSA at the site from April 15 to May 21, 1999, is included in Attachment A. This project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all environmental permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified in this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities, and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The site shall be maintained until the performance standards are met. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projeces surroundings.) The project site is bounded by Back Bay Drive on the east and below the area and by Park Newport Apartments along the coastal bluffs above. San Joaquin Hills Road borders the south side of the area. The area along Back Bay is an ecological preserve, and also allows limited recreational use of the area, The areas to the south, east, CHECKLIST Page 1 and west of the project site are mainly residential development, with commercial/retail establishments to serve the area residents. , 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils Hazards/ Iazardous Materials Agricultural Resources 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise Recreation Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance CHECKLIST Page 2 2 DETERtMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Ifind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposod project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Javier S. Garcia Printed Name l QL__ Date F:IUSERS1PLMSHARED%I PLANCOWENDINOWARKNPT2\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 3 v w Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Siyhlticant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat Q conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 4 Potentially Potentially TLess than No sianmeant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the Eff existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result In conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic -related ground failure, Including liquefaction? d) Landslides or mudflows? CHECKLIST Page 5 C r Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or Ef the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil pj that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as J( defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately gj supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? V. HYDROLOGY. Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CHECKLIST Page 6 r 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 6) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, Including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? VI. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be re fed upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Potentially VLe" than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless 161poct Mitigation Incorporated Q( 0 B1 BJ H 0 B1 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 Y 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? 6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Bj 0 Q Ef Ef CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No 9lgnlnant slgn"Icant algniticant Impact Impact unless Impact Msagedon Incorporated 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, Qj or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Vill. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project; 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on Qj any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or (t7f ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Ct1ECKUST Page 9 14 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Idipact Mitigation Incorporated• 6) Conflict with the provisions of an Ef adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IX. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a 01 known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a Q locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local, general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or E handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or propose school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Y Lass than No significant significant significant Impact Impact Unless wpect Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working In the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or 121 physically interferewith an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a b significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed with wildlands? A. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels In excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CHECKLIST Page l j r r Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a 1z private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Q Parks? Other public facilities? XIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment Qj requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? CHECKLIST Page 12 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid Waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the project 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Potentially Less tMn No significant significant significant Impact Impact Unless pact Mitigation Incorporated R1 jf. 0 B( R1 R1 0 i CHECKLIST Page 13 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XVI RECREATION. 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Signiflcant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q 21. R1 0 CHECKLIST Page 14 potsnually potowally Laaa than No signincsnt slgnllicant Slgnincant impact Impact unins Igtpact Miugsdon Incorporaw XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential C) y7f to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that 7( are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and4he effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have Bj environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F.\USERMMSHARED11 FORMSWEG•DEC)CKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of theCEQAGuidelinesandareonfileandavailableforreviewatthePlanningDepartment,tCity of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program FIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. City of Newport Beach, 1998. General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element. General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution No. 98-49. Adopted June 22. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City of Newport Beach, 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Certified by the California Coastal Commission. January, 9, 1990 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air QualiityManagementPlan 1997. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air QualityManagementPlan FIR, 1997. 10. South Coast air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 11. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14,1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 13. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 14. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 15. Biological Assessment ofProposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. 16. LSA Associates, 1999. Draji EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98-061113. July 1, 1999. 17. LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Habitat Restoration Plan and Specifications, for Park Newport Apartments Slide Area. April 9 18. LSA Associates, 1999. Draft EIR for the Newport Dunes Resort (Redline/Strikeout Screencheck). SCH No. 98 061113. July 1'7 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS r City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644.3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannin Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the lop of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi- family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does notpropose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. in - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December $, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District Planned Community District). Chapter20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The arcs proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites In Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an avbrage slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 fat in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the site must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradingterosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal ProaramUnd Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the Past Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. Would the proposed project: L Physically divide an established community! No Impact. The project site is located on a slope below the Park Newport Apartments clubhouse facility and above Back Bay Drive. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. The project will not physically divide any established community. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, there are no impacts from the project related to applicable land use plans. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located above Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. The proposed project will consist of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Therefore, the project is expected to have a positive effect on species and habitats. 2. Agricultural Resources. As it pertains to agricultural resources, would -the project: I. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. G 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non• agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Pooulation/Housine Would the project: L Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? No Impact. The project will not displace any numbers of existing housing. 'Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. Z Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact, The project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the project to population growth. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will not displace any residents or employees in the area. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue resulting from the proposed project. 4. Geology and Soils. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, Injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault zone (Petra,1999). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered unlikely. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impart. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shak- ing will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (1.5 miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Potential damage from seismic hazards is considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project. Due to the nature of the project, slope stabilization will be ensured. Slope stabilization within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC, in effect at the time of permitting. c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. d) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating an existing slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. In order to ensure slope stabilization, work must be accomplished prior to the onset of the heavy winter rains. Therefore, significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides will not result from the proposed project. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal estuaries still surviving along the coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Considered a Acritical estuary@ habitat, Upper Newport Bay is one of the most pristine remaining estuaries in Southern California. As a result, impacts to water quality in Upper Newport Bay are a significant concern. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into Upper Newport Bay has degraded its water quality. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay's other tributaries. The eroded silt then deposits into Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay's total tributary watershed is approximately 150 square miles, of which the San Diego Creek drains approximately 123 square miles, or 82 percent. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains about 16 square miles (13 percent). Both of these major tributaries enter Upper Newport Bay at its northern extremity. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Upper Newport Bay are siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses. and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The quality of surface runoff is now controlled by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires all new development proposals to be conditioned to provide sedimentation controls and implement non-structural source solutions. The following Standard Conditions shall be implemented for the proposed project. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the California Regional Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, The SWPPP will have included, at a minium, the follow- ing items -,I 1. A map extending approximately one -quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands2), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; c. Areas of cut and lull; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; I. Locations of post -construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas ofexisting vegetation. State Water Resources Control Board, August 20, 1992. Fact sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity. The determination of whether wetlands exist shall be made by the person who prepares the SWPPP and shall not be binding upon any other person. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created,lstored, disposed of, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; c. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site -specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roadsshall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall, be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. Less than Significant Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils during grading operations will be mini- mized through the Standard Conditions listed above. The proposed project will com- ply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during excavation activities to meet the requirements of Orange County's DAMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) requirements. Prior to excavation, the Grading Contractor shall install a temporary chain link fence on the bay side of Backbay Drive to prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay. The Grading Contractor shall install an adequate number of posts to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, the Grading Contractor shall install silt fence the entire length of the chain link. The silt fence shall be buried a minimum of three inches at the base and shall be supported by the chain link fence. With implementation of the required SWPPP and related NPDES permit and installation of the fencing, impacts related to soil erosion resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soli that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or oftsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. The proposed project is it corrective measure to stabilize an existing, unstable geologic unit. Therefore, significant impacts related to unstable soil will not result from the proposed project. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 18.1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slope will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub to restore the site to its natural condition. Buildings or structures will not be placed on the slope. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to expansive soils. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not availablefor the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be placed on the subject site. Therefore, there will be no impacts on soils supporting non -sewer wastewater disposal systems resulting from the project. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. 9). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 4 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. S. Hvdroloey Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? S No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff. Implementation of the proposed project will adhere to adopted -development standards for water quality established by the City of Newport Beach, the State, and the federal government, including the Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the City Excavation and Grading Code. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project, which will include provisions to eliminate water quality impacts during and after construction. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code would reduce any impacts to an insignificant level, and potential impacts to surrounding properties from waste discharge during grading operations will be minimized through the Standard Conditions listed in Section 4.6 above. With implementation of the Standard Conditions described in Section 4 and adherence to the City grading and erosion control standards, impacts related to water quality or waste discharge resulting from the proposed project will be less than significant. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact, The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the project site and, therefore, will not decrease.the recharge capability of the site. No significant changes to the groundwater supplies that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge will result from the proposed project. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river# In a manner which would result In substantial erosion or siltation on. or off - site? Less Than Significant impact. To prevent any soil or debris from entering the bay, a temporary chain link fence will be installed on the bay side of Back Bay Drive prior to excavation. An adequate number of posts shall be installed to support the fence during impact from falling debris and slide material. In addition, a silt fence, buried a minimum of three inches at the base and supported by the chain link fence, shall be installed the entire length of the chain link fence. Also, the site will be entirety planted with coastal sage scrub, thereby increasing the stability of the slope. Therefore, impacts from the project resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be reduced to a less than significant impact. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decrease the recharge capability of the site, resulting In an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on oroff site. 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substadtial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, will not decreaseahe recharge capability of the site, resulting in an increase in runoff. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from the project to flooding on or off site. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality in the area. Efforts to protect the bay from falling debris and erosion will be implemented as discussed in Items 1) and 3) above. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project will not be significant. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project entails excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures will be placed on the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to housing in a 100 year flood hazard area. 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. See Item 7) above. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project consists of excavating a slide area and revegetating the slope to its natural condition. No structures or people serving facilities will be located on the project site. Therefore, the risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding from a tsunami, seiche, or dam break is considered nonexistent. 6. Air Quality The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive t0 receptor; to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality standards, and is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP and emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April, 1993). Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, expo- sure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blow- ing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. To reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance, the developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures: i All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to pre- vent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ii All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour). iii All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. b. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the followmg'measures: i Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. ii All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: i On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ii All elements of the road being widened shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. iii At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: iv Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturers specifications. v On -site mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period longer than 60 seconds. d. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered, or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. e. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six. weeks or less), and adherence to dust suppression measures already required through implementation of SCAQMD=s Rules 402 and 403 (see 4.3(b) above), air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD=s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing agency rules and regulations. No exceedances to SCAQMD=s criteria pollutant emission thresholds are anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for 12 a0 I the region. These emissions are part of the emission inventory included in the AQMP for the project area. Due to the limited scale of the project, the short duration of the construction activity (six weeks or less), and adherence to Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in non -attainment status in the South Coast Air Basin. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Common locations of sensitive receptors include schools, day-care centers, parks and recreational areas, medical facilities/hospitals, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Located west of the project site across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport Back Bay, an ecological preserve. Recreational activities available on the bay include canoeing and kayaking, as well as walking tours and bicycling along Back Bay Drive. Construction of the proposed project will expose existing sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). These impacts are not considered significant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration (approximately six weeks or less). Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Therefore, exposure to long-term substantial pollutant concentrations is not expected from project imple- mentation, and no significant impacts will result from the proposed project. S. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel powered construction equipment during the excavation of the slide area. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and, therefore, would not be significant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors will result from the proposed project. M., 1911=1 Or,t'.. , Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which Is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (f.e.) result in a substantial Increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Intersections)? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility, and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic, Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and 13 pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to be a change in the environment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 2. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The project will not alter any transportation facility and, therefore, will not result in an increase in traffic. Currently, the slide overhangs Back Bay Drive and has been one of the reasons that Back Bay Drive has been kept closed to the public (both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) since the slide occurred in December, 1997. Back Bay Drive, which will be opened again to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provides coastal access along the entire length of Upper Newport Bay. This is not considered to bea change intheenvironment, and no impacts will result from these actions. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns, levels, or safety factors and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to air traffic. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project is expected to increase the safety of users on Back Bay Drive by stabilizing the slope. Therefore, there will be no impacts. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency access areas. In fact, the project will have a positive effect by providing safer passage along Back Bay Drive, which will increase the amount of emergency access to the Back Bay and the residences along the bluffs. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact parking capacity. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e. g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. 14 Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay [rive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay, There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Dialogical Resources Existing Setting As stated in the LCP and the Land Use Element, environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive; Riparian areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes Intertidal areas Other wetlands Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities The project site is located adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a 741 acre ecological preserve. The reserve has been identified by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern California Association of Governments as a unique and valuable State resource. The upper bay is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, and the saltwater marsh, bay waters, and uplands of upper Newport Bay provide habitat for 158 species of birds, of which 81 species are wading or water associated birds. Rare or endangered birds utilizing the reserve that nest in pickleweed, sedges, saligmss, and bulrush; Belding=s Savannah Sparrow, which nests in pickleweed; light-footed clapper tail, which nests in pickleweed and cordgmss; California Least Tern, which lays its eggs in the sand; and California Brown Pelican, which occasionally visits the upper bay for purposes of resting and feeding. Also present in the reserve are 18 species on the Audubon Blue List, a list of birds not considered rare or endangered, but which are showing evidence of non -cyclic population declines or range contractions. Over 60 species of fish and over 1,000 species of marine invertebrates have been reported in the bay (LCP,1990). Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species to local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. Approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1. thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. 15 As specified in the proposed habitat restoration plan, prior to the excavation of the slide and following the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season, all vegetation shall be manually cut and removed. Cutting the vegetation will'prevent coastal Cali- fornia gnatcatchers from inhabiting the site during grading. During this work, the Restoration Ecologist shall monitor all removal activities to ensure that no sensitive species are harmed or harassed. Therefore, the project will have a positive effect on natural resources. The gnatcatcher breeding season is from February I through August 15. To avoid the nesting season, work at the project site will commence after August 15. In addition, all site preparation, grading and construction activities for the proposed project shall be monitored on site by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall have the express authority to halt all work at or in the vicinity of the project site should California gnatcatchers be encountered. Therefore, impacts to gnatcatchers resulting from the project will be below a level of significance. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The slope is being restored with natural vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slide's instability poses a threat to the light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub.habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, such as the light-footed clapper rail. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation at a ratio of 2.5:1, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on riparian and other sensitive habitat in the project area. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands will result from the proposed project. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on sensitive habitat in the project area. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project will restore the slope to its natural, vegetative state. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the slide area is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat, which coastal California gnatcatchers have been known to use for foraging. The 16 remainder of the slide contains bare ground and non-native vegetation. After removal of the slide portion of the slope, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, thereby providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. In addition, restoration efforts will help stabilize the slope, which will reduce the potential hazards to endangered and threatened species, as well as their habitat, such as the salt marsh habitat for the light-footed clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a significant positive effect on native resident species. S. Co*Rkt mitk-aey local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact In order to preserve and protect sensitive coastal resources within Newport Beach, the following development policy pertaining to the ecological preserve has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is included in the City's General Plan Land Use Element: Policy D - The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Typically, these are water associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The seven environmentally sensitive areas (listed above) shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below. b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. c. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an envircintnentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The project will restore the entire site to coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will provide more habitat for coastal California gnatcatehers. The original landform was destroyed during the slide event. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d. above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabilized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, 17 which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project is consistent with land use policy as defined in Section d, above, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, where the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. The coastal bluff and slope will be stabi- lized, and the slope revegetated with natural plant species, which will also enhance the habitat for endangered or threatened species such as the gnatcatcher and clapper rail. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on biological resources at the site. Mt &ation Measure No. 5 A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained implace throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 9. Mineral Resources Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project. 10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? is r No impact. There are no hazardous materials on the site, nor will any materials that may be hazardous be used in the excavation of the slide. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the project related to the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Releases of hazardous materials during project excavation is not expected to occur. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the excavation activities to ensure compliance with all local,'state, and federal environmental laws relating to hazardous material releases. Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts related to hazardous material releases. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one•quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Less titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities will expose existing sensitive receptors to a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e.. usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). however, these impacts are not considered signifi- cant given the limited scale of the project and because they are of short duration. The nearest school is Corona del Mar high School, which is approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. An elementary school is located near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree, approximately three-quarter mile northeast from the project site. There are no schools located within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site. The project site is not visible at either of the school sites due to its location on the coastal bluff. Therefore, because of the distance and the limited scope of work at the site, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to school facilities. A. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites such as the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund. Therefore, this concern does not apply to the proposed project. S. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles away from the project site. There- fore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19 No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no significant impacts are related to this issue. 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no significant impacts related to such plans will result from the proposed project. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is a slope that will be revegetated to its natural condition following excavation of a slide area. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department along the apartments. No structures or people service facilities will be located on the site. Therefore, there are no impacts related to wildland fires resulting from the project. The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 11. Noise Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Titan Significant Impact. Excavation activities would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the proposed project, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome nosie levels would not be significant 3. A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ' No .impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, there would be no impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project consists of removing a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Due to the limited scale and short duration of the project, as well as adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance, the increase would not be substantial and, therefore, there would be no impacts related to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. 5. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately four miles from the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, and is not within the airport=s 60 dBA CNEL impact zone. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise Is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations NBMC Chapter 10.28). The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City or Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28,040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. will reduce potential short-term noise 21 level impacts to a level of insigniftcanee. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 12. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, which currently serves the existing site. The project consists of installing plant species approved for use in the fuel modification zone by the Newport Beach Fire Department in the area adjacent to the apartments. Therefore, no significant impact related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. 2. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project will not require an increase in demand for services by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, which currently serves the existing site. Therefore, no significant impact related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. 3. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services. Therefore, no significant impacts to schools will result from the proposed project. 4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for park use. Therefore, no significant impacts to area parks will result from the proposed project. 5. Other public facilities? 22 2t No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in cTemand for any other public facilities, such as libraries. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 13. amities and Service Systems. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 2. Require or result In the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not generate the need for water or wastewater. Therefore, them are no impacts to existing water/wastewater treatment facilities. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainagcfacilities or expansion or existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact, The project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there is no impact resulting from the proposed project. 4. Have sufficleat water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Ne Impact. Tito project doesmt require service to utilities, including water. Therefore, there are no impacts on water supply. S. Result in a de .. nation by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the prtdtct that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there are no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements. 11L lie served by a laadlitl wi& su117cient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's lid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not requite the use of a landfill facility. Therefore, there are no impacts to landfill capacities. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to soUd waste? No Impact. The project Will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there are no impacts related to statutes and regulations for solid waste disposal. 23 14. Aesthetics Existing Setting Views within the City of Newport Beach are protected and regulated by several policy documents. The City=s Gene Recreation and Open Space Element, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all contain measures to protect si applicable view preservation policies of each of these documents are excerpted below. Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Development Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, preservation of public views and the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of nat and cliffs. Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources Policy 6.1 - Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Opt and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and OI Policy 6.2 - Coastal Views: Protect and enhance view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, ar with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Coastal Views 1. Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines froi and designed to maximize protection on the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit coastal develo 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Eastbluff Park is the designated coastal view nearest to the subject site, located on the bluff above the slope of the project site (shown in Figure 6). The slope is visible to recreationists and pedestrians using Back Bay and Back Bay Drive, but is below the line of vision from visitors to the park. In addition, a view park (Galaxy Park) is located across the bay from which the slope may be visible. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period from users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established (estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). Views from Galaxy Park may also be too far away to easily 24 discern the restoration activities. Therefore, impacts resulting' from the proposed project would be below a level of significance. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. The slope is not a designated scenic resource, as indicated in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan map. There would be some visual impact during the restoration period to users of Back Bay and Back Bay Drive; however, this would be short-term until the vegetation became established estimated to take approximately six months from installation of plants). The slope will be revegetated with native plant species. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less -than significant. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will restore the slope vegetation to its pre -slide condition. There would be some visual impact during the revegetation period; however, this would be short-term until vegetation became established. The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short -terns aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. Therefore, impacts to visual character or quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project does not include new lighting sources. Work will be done during daylight hours. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts from light or glare resulting from the proposed project. IS. Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Setting Based on previous documents and surveys, most of the known cultural sites in the area are located on bluffs overlooking Upper Newport Bay. During the Late Period, the Gabrielino Indians were prevalent in the area. They lived in permanent communities along inland water courses and coastal estuaries. Seasonal camps were established along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gathershellfish and hunt waterfowl. The coastal Gabrielino had a marine odented,economy that combined collecting shellfish, marine fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. In the vicinity of the project site, the Gabrielino community of Genga was located in the Upper Newport Bay area, near the confluence of two drainages. There are two prehistoric sites in the Upper Newport Buy area that may have been associated with Genga. However, while no significant archaeological sites have been recorded on the project site, there are numerous recorded sites in the vicinity of the project, including the 25 adjacent Bayview Landing site, located between Jamboree Boulevard, Back Bay Drive, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach policy, as provided in the City=s LCP, requires archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) be adopted on a case by case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is situated on a vertical slope, with the majority of the slope being inaccessible. Most of the known cultural sites are located on top of the bluffs, which is an area that will not be disturbed by the proposed project. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to historical resources. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature may have been impacted by the slide that occurred at the site. The project will restore the slope to its natural condition. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy (see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish dJ procedures for archeologicallpaleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long. term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in grange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the city of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 4. Disturb any human remains, Including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site is on a slope, which most likely has not been used for human burials. However, any human remains that may have been present would have been disturbed by the slide activity. The project will restore the site to its natural condition. If any remains are encountered during restoration work, work will stop and a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be called on to examine the finds. With adherence to City of Newport Beach policy see above), the project will not result in any significant impacts to any potential human remains that may be present on the site. 16. Recreation Would the project; 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive, The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. Therefore, no significant impacts to these facilities will result from the proposed project. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on 27 the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the constmction'or expansion of any recreational facilities. The project consists of excavating a slide area and restoring the slope to its natural condition. The slides instability poses a threat to the public using the road; excavating the slide will help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public on the Back Bay Drive below. The road is used by the public for walking tours of the ecological preserve and bicycling along the Back Bay. Therefore, the project will result in a beneficial effect by providing a safe environment for recreation users. 17. Mandatory Findines of Sieniticance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project will consist of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public and endangered and threatened species. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using the road, as well as to light-footed clapper rail utilizing salt marsh habitat on the bay side of Back Bay Drive. Following slide removal, the entire site will be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation, providing more habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Therefore, the project will have a beneficial effect on environmental quality. 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact. The project involves removal of a slide area and restoration of the slope to its natural vegetative condition. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore; there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a 28 beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. No Impact. The project involves restoring a slope to its natural vegetative state. The project consists of excavating the slide to help stabilize the coastal bluff and reduce potential hazards to the public, as well as to endangered and threatened species in the Back Bay. The slide=s instability poses a threat to the public using Back Bay Drive. Therefore, there are no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In fact, the project will have a beneficial effect in that it will reduce the risk of future slide activity with restoration of the slope. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063(c)(3](D].) In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following existing documents were referred to for this analysis and are available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.: Newport Beach General Plan - Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element Local Coastal Program - land Use Plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope afand adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less titan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and at amw to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 29 so San Bernardino 6 County Jr Los Angeles County 57 71 r 9 ao 1 5 st \ t5 Riverside County 55 Orange \ 22 1 405 % 55 County 41 133 7340 111 74 I j1 PROJECT 1 ea SITE o I o O i San Diego v r P County LL 8/13/99(PNP830) Figure 1 4116 Scale in Miles SAo 6 Regional Location 1. @a-. Coiling .- •.ter.. i Source: USGS 7.5' 4 4, •4 BLUFF do SLIDE : REVEGETATION k:.'' f f 9Ib 81131"(PNP830) 4? N L[" Scalein fat A\J - r o 1000 2000 yy91 i'• t` :, yam° wn',I. 5 y 11 rl u r ' r 1Y• •• 1'JM• RIti.IhAii Sall •rt•• 5' Er`poet4ort , 1 _ 5 rG0 hT TttlnAn ti b l • it a ` 1 rty.. 5 i14 NA! F.• j lfit r t • ' i 1 R ^ •A 5 ' ec Laguna Beach, Cafif." aalltaaaa i Figure 2 Project Location 1 s' ter r '*w„y..• ae r ~n, a''" •._ + r N1i:(i: 1 `•:.\ `'O!!•'•. Yr fOft1PARKNEWP ` TAPARTMENTSNMI it 1._ . • !( 'y' f •r-•-.-. ..._ 1[i<i t.'--c•F *i•/r •. .' i.. L.}: _ :! . / /.'ry :s! /./Lff t, + / .i'•..`Fbr:_A''... •E l ; .r+ '•4, • • " + ' r ri /'i: ; /f i gyp' f .' `"+ l ;, , ,+j S -` s • Fij '• f ..-•' --'.Y: • •.ice—'".'_.. ^ - i•+' yj1. . 7rJ / ,• • ,..ice' ^.•—'.. :. '_ — __ _ __ _ _ _ _.. 17 r'' if:','' UPPtrNewportBa! LEGEND: Slide narocmrua¢am LSh Scale in Feet s " Mww— iso Figure 3 Slide Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Site r z d T..`' • fit. `i 7pprn (imnlrNah - llnunrinr r - - ' l i_@ACK_ORIV__x- u• i ( tee' o' y`/',., i. Ilk t I , - :tee *: i • ••/ / /i '/ r ,/ Source: R33F. /%/'-' s• .. : ' %% ; 3/13/99(PNP8301 N: LSD mw Feet 3-0 60 CIS came fw.uo ,oaL'iw.• Figure 5 Grading Plan LEGEND: Pli I Galaxy Park 2 Eastbluff Remnant tot ..... .... .. 3 Eastbluff Park a . to , , 4bthfl4lI, L all .4 Kso-,.. C011E" source: I BLUFF& SLIDE REVEGETATION t it 1511.1/W(PNP1130) 416 N Sale in Fowl LSAQ 100 2000 r MME Figure 6 View Locations is LSA Associates, Inc. Principals Rob Bolen Sheila Brady Les Card David Clore Ross Dobbertern Steve Graubolm Richard Harlacher Roger Harn'l An Homrighausen Larry Kennings Laura Lafler Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Anthony Petros Rob Schonholtz Makolm J. Sproul Lloyd B. Zola Associates James Baum Connie Calics Tung-cben Chung, Ph.D. Steven W Conkling Gary Dora Jack Eaton Richard Erickson Kevin Fin cher Frank Hascton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Malamut Sabrina Nicbolls M. W. 'Bill' O'Connell Deborah Praolio Amy Skemes-Cox Lynette Stanebina Jill Wilson O'Conner LS/y May 25, 1999 Mr. Loren Hays US Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Gnatcatcher Surveys on Bluff Below Park Newport Apartments Dear Loren: Six California gnatcatchers surveys have now been completed on the bluff above Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to a point approximately 0.3 mile north. These surveys were begun on April 15, 1999, and were completed on May 21, 1999. No gnatcatchers were observed or heard on any of the six occasions. Copies of the completed survey forms are attached for your review. The six surveys were made one week apart, except between the fifth and sixth survey, which were eight days apart. Gerson Bakar & Associates wishes to proceed with their proposed project as quickly as possible so that it is completed, including the-revegetation of the slide area, before the onset of the winter rains. -They hope to begin the repair of the slide and its associ- ated drainage structure as soon as all other permits are in place (estimated August 1999). The installation of the drainage structures at the top of the slope is imperative to the long-term survival of the coastal sage scrub plant community below. The heavy rains during the winter of 1997/98 washed from the top down over the side of the bluff and cut the away the cryptogamie crust, which covers the soil in the open areas and protects it from damage by raindrops. Consequently, the sooner the drainage is in- stalled above the native plant community the safer the bluff will be from further scouring and slides, such as took place in 1997/98. Application for a Coastal Development permit has not yet been made. However, it would be most helpful if we had a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your review and approval to remove the slide. We would submit this letter to the California Coastal Commission, along with our application, in hope of speeding the permit process. 525/99«P:\PNP830\gnatsurveyltcwpd» a One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 949 533-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Irvine, California 92614-5981 Facsimile 949353-8076 Pt. Richmond, Riverside and Sacramento E-mail irvinah4@I$a-ass0e rum n, 0 LfA Anodain, Inc. Loren, I want to thank you on behalf of Gerson Bakar for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet in the field and review the situation and prepare the letter to the California Coastal Commission, which has helped to expedite this process. if you have any questions regarding the surveys or the project itself, please call me at 949)553-0666. Sincerely, ISA ASSOCIATES, INC. M.W. "Bill" O'Connell Associate Biologist/Rostoration Ecologist cc: Eric Burres, California Department of Fish and Game Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar & Associates Kevin Culbertson, Culbertson and Adams Attachment 5SSM(p.MS30*nWwvrA(t wpd)) 2 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc.z,No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVBZ FORM / Site: 136e Investigators: On Date: .2i Starting Time: f,,'/S Stopping Time: 7!S"O Conditions (Veather 5 Temperature): / Start: C/ Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals_ Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: 0 C.. ao/, 4i -- n o Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 1. nr-ela- C4/I-n nieC 9 3. 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 2 Other important plants ee a /&& Y S 5'" Comments: Uses Joh, Habitat Areas and The 3 ssociates, Inc. tem dated May 1992 prepared by All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected vithin a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 4 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS) CONDUCTED BY' PROJECT NA. Ei 1.Locatlon of ilia survey area: 2. De4criplion of survey methods: 3. How frequently Witt tapb vocalization used (If at all): rj% -L _ s.. ` f d'7 7p S /d a.ir P n /rp. 4. Total number of surveys: 410 s Data s s 2, Blol ist e 3•` C,., W then G ew y Tan erature GZ VMS Stxvoyad Pot E2LOIIlst Pat Day 3 Aoule Used it /c e.. 6. Gnatcatcher slghltng(s):• Number Me' six G. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s)•! Number sox 7. Provide a qualitative ascription of the plant cc9gmuniltes (I cluds dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the= survey area: e S/99 I / e I, Sea map for locatlon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent jttvenlle, dependent juvenile, recently fledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. ' s s Pape i `_ c Site: Inve Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Qua d r ' u•'I"f cCs stigatars: .Z/O CiFw t Date: Starting Time: •',D Stopping Time: Conditions (Veather & Temperaturs): Start: GL Clee,r Stop: 3 clo c v Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Dominant Plant / 1 Rel. Cover 2.t e 7C Ctc.tSc Gi 30 %_ 3. 41 c/us. C N / rnic --+ -- — 4. Avg. Height i Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 ,.80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 Other important plants `,eqr lam. Comments: Use Orange County's Habitat Classi John Gray and David Bramlet and Me County Parks and Open Saace Areas dated May 1992 prepared by rvev the Vegetation of Ora: 10, 1993 by Jones & Stokes Associa6c, •.• All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. J 1994 COASTAL CALIF O NIA GNATCA ER SURVEYS) CONDUCTED BY el PROJECT NA. & ^,7 %r,,,Vt s % Ja /3'r si r 1. Location of tine survey area: 2. tlescriptlon of shrvsy methods: d. NOW frequently wai taps vocalization used (If at aln: 44 9Ore Tla '6P A. Total turmberofsurveys- !— D to s S/ yam Bb Ist a 3./ t 'c--•, W alher c a Tem eralure Ares surveyed Pw Bldoglst Per Day Aoule Used G 3 3 5. Gnatcatcher slghting(s)•: Number A e•' Sex 6. Brown-headod cowbird slghting(s); Number A .. Sex T. ProvIde a qualitative description of the plant communities (Include dominant species and habltet quality) on and adjacent to the i survey area: SQ e 4y1!5 2!9 See map for locatbn(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nesllkig, and unknown. Pago 1 Site: 0 Survey No. Polygon -No. Mapped loc. No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Ouad CAGN/CAVR SURVR7 FORM A*' EGG" bow L/i 7-S "/'ri. n. ode/irn/I Investigators: /( . L// (2DLO Date: Starting Time: G'ao Stopping Time: ^7; zS' Conditions (Veather 6 Temperature): Start: sy F Stop: !Cr o/I'-- Clee r Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Plant Rel.. Cover Avg. Height. aDDominant 1(/ Q fG1. t/1Gf G C4-l'Or nICG. O 2. e C a. 3. t a ho r., e y+h P 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 X gap; X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 6 Other important plants r d iH/G Ui Comme ts: SC2 e S t r Use Orange County's Habitat John Gray and David Bramlet dated May 1992 prepared by rvnv the Vegetation of Ora All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. G Or n. t4- 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHE SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY L' . Ca -.- PROJECT NAME . ir/R. 1. Location of the survey area: 2. Description of survey methods; S. How frequentlywa! taps vocalization used (if ataln: i. Total number of surVeys: Dates B s Weather Te eralurs Aaas Swayed Per BlologistParl)av Roils Used 0-ce'. G' oear,.. riNn / y't' 3 RA /O 6. dnatcatcher slghting(s): G. Brown -headed cowbird slghting(s): Numbst A . sex t9unba Sex. T. Provide a qualitative description of the plant communities (include dominant species and habitat quality) -on and adjacent to the survey area: Se s - - ,-e v h&—)/ 07e ?: d See map for loealion(s). Age categories to be used are aduk, Independent Juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 Survey No. Polygon No. Happed loc. No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAYR SURVEY FORM Site: Investigators: v. r Date: Starting Time: /, ; yS-AM Stopping Time: Conditions (Veather 3 Temperature): / Start: S'S°% C/" N e Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals_ Sex: Hale / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: (' r,re/,a.•' + ' Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. Height 11 1. e A/ C C-0 eL 2. fi, /c-2LOSCO -S 3. w C/ .. Ga l yn/cv.h /- Z i ee7' 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 90 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 >60 Other important plants , o c.cu/• y veep fx,1, /o Comm ts: ,c TTe i f— P qq / fN it ' e A/ G , 11-A 5 J fv ram^ /i Y• C y(s•+,/-A G fin/ ye' rejc • S CX J2e ev Use Ore OraiCounty's Habit Classification System datedyH 1992 prepared by John Gray, and David Hramlet and Hethods`usseed to Survey-the°'Vegefvtdatedion fFebri 10, 1993 by Jones & stores assuiz a— , • All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be' collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting.' CO C r 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY1 J l',,,,, , y // +• PROJECT NA, E 1. Location of the survey area: 2. Daiiedptlon of aittvay methods: 3. now frequently wa3 taps vocalization used (it at slo: 4. Total number of surveys:_ 7 Data s) y1 9 Bio at c / ICO Weather G ItMO turn AasaSwnyadPw 81 3 erDa Bouts Used rg /OM Q 17el 0*+ , S. Gnatcatcher sightings)' S. Brown -headed cowbird alghting(s):• Numbw A a•• Sax Nuabor AgT Sex s T. Provide a qualitative desctipilo of trps plant communities (incl a dorninantspeclesand habitat quality) on and adjacent to thesurveyarea:`f r749 See map for location(s). Age categories to be used are adult, Independent juvenile, dependent juvenile, recently lledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. Page 1 Site: Inve 0 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc. No. Map or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVRZ FORM stigators: G, tiell Date: 2 Conditions (Veath Start Stop: Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair Sex: Male / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type: Dominant Plant r 1. Onyyce%L C G t ern.cw 2. n./e scer s 3. Starting Time: 5-0 . Stopping Time: GROUP - No. Individuals Recently Fledged Juvenile / Rel. Cover Avg. Height 30 0 -6 Pee fI/ S v - ec T 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 .80 ® 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 Other important plants - 10-35 35-60 >60 Use Orange County's Habitat Classification System dated May 1992 prepared byJohnGrayandDavidBramletandMethodsusedtoSurveytheVegetationofOrangeCountyParksandopenSpaceAreasandTheIrvineCompanyProperr-dated Februar; 10, 1493 by Jones b Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. i. - 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCIiER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY _ f. . // ' f • 0 PROJECT NA, E° I. Location of the survey area: 2. Vscripllon of survey methods: 3. How frequently wa3 taps vocalization used (It at *IQ: A. Total number of surVeys: 62 Oates t3k ! s Weather Ta eralure Acres Surveyed For 91 ist Par Da Routs Used 3, 1ro e,,.,ir y srs 6. Gnatcatcher sighting(s):• Number A e•• Sax T. Provide a qualitative descrtptl 9n of the plant survey area: Qe -Oy" Sy r+rj 6. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s)! NumberAM.. Sex include dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the See - map for locailon(s). Age categories to be used are adult, independent juventle, dependent juvenile, recenilylledged juvenile, nestling, and unknown. I Pago 1 Survey No. Polygon No. Mapped loc-'-No. Hap or Air Photo No. or USGS Quad CAGN/CAVR SURVB7 FORM Site: Inves Date:! S- ' Starting Time: , ; 2 S-&" Stopping Time: 7 WO 19/'1 Conditions (Weather S Temperature): Start: Stop: J-=g, t7ea! Species observed: CAGN / CAVR Number observed: Single / Pair GROUP - No. Individuals Sex: Hale / Female Age: Adult / Independent Juvenile Recently Fledged Juvenile / Nesting / Unknown Other sensitive species: Habitat type:a ( nceltL Cheh4rolPadscrYA2 Dominant Plant Rel. Cover Avg. HeighC 1. »c Pot. 6/;TrOrtilCG- D 2. cC>. sr-eHs 2 3. e l=,,ems,-, z P'e 4. Absolute shrub cover: 30 40 50 60 70 80 (9 100 X gap: X bare group: X herb cover: Slope: Flat 0-10 10-35 35-60 60 Other important Use John cation System dated Ha 1 ods used to Survey the Ve J YBGO q13 " rtls, o- vied /i6'•'• prepared by tion of Orange County Parks and Ooen Space Areas and The Irvine company rry C_, ___ •__ 10, 1993 by Jones b Stokes Associates, Inc. All habitat information, including dominant plants, absolute and relative shrub cover, average plant height, X gap, X bare ground, X•herb cover, etc., shall be collected within a radius of about 25 meters of each individual bird sighting. 1994 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY(S) CONDUCTED BY %/ n / PROJECT NA. E ,. e , /e a , r- 1. Location of (he survey area: 2. f)e9crlptlon of survey methods: S. How frequently we& tap& vocalization used (it at all): 4.Totai number of surveys: _6 0 Dale(s)BIo st s Weather Tam erature Aas,SurveyadPat 8101091st Per Day Routs Used 7- Qf 5. Gnalcatcher sighting(s)! Number JAM.. sax 7. Provide a qualitative survey area: /i/e rri G. Brown -headed cowbird sighting(s):• Nambar A a•• nsex species and habitat and adjacent to the See map for location(s). Age categories to be used are adult, independent juvenile, dependent Juvenile, recently fledged Juvenile, nestling, and unknown. 0 Pago 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. 7 1 AND RI"RTINGPROGRAM SIIMMARY Pads Newport Gradiq Project Park Newport Apattmetb October 12,1999 impkMeagtioa Method of Tio wet RespaarVAC Ve ttlead a NMGATIONMb1SORLS Acdm Verdkatim Verilkattam pa am Data t GDDIAfACPItOIt[>>ME([aA) L Mt 6 pajw drr oubm b to NWmd Polpim CmMosd mmaw& Ph rbl6eilwamof Died VEkA jCmSptm(NlDE4)PrametsmdAAbs=*dla gwovol it pmsap p — wo" ie1powtdisHiieWrdaDytbmdsadinBml SDapatomtar ma'.- . mbwwwd Depaeast CitymemindOea- E"*W piarblsihw d an2. An d i"a" dfis owfWod hcMm AM be dii CoamorCheck C6eandPPg ns PoWieWade ooVWedbyaanpaldpdapt MwhcWmdd& imperYd&rim APProval rmtieaemsariwgby od*Medpiwbdw Deparaset Apritarldydendya7&amdnddteimpK6= Adl&mdwiedb pmipattya iwsmedpamg laQtyarNewptHr&I ieWabDGstrtorwwewldaelasL PIMA Sbaedd it& dtnmisdtlstdedaps it coati®Kb AC &rdrymt& rembor a andinPuSatyfat6rnmedi, , -9aaa, , wmk AsIbe VdmdmddwdmdbydwPdAcWadmDio* z Air®aid vm& I iedby*eCtyAgboamgiredbyNav=Wldmtym 3. 7& omtaeed rdis bd be me6mdy mmitid by to Cmdiianar Plan Check and Prapama+mtaiK Pa— wada pgw1yvmrmddmmkwt"CiydNewpat Bsdt Pabie Wade Approval matins mmitagby uWAbadpirlogm Dgmbmed Dvwkmt. peopictyow iamnoed/a&s PMA 4. 7be pojwi reR omwly With *a ataion and SuLabm mdidassmtadtYe Cityypadiyaadimm+ i andalIVAea okcal Cmdidmof PLoCbedt Priafol6sba or Pait, aWadu sod Sh& bm' idey ands and aeimk &mW iaidd'eas kda ft t& Vprovd waftpad Depabved City Fsnradm and C#a- Code (NBMC Satiaa 15.04140 or appHC"mdlem)6 S. BlOLOGWALIMOUF M S. AmIm'EWopatWwnssdwhditnidoeiianAmin Cmdtimor PbnChxk PriorwAwimmear FArlewo" is aewyts&S pried sad nmeiar msiasmos and papa amp W*Vd Ripe t DVwkmd and the amdummfseiSaW&iaadidakaK6edSe d6eamtataapesoob PI - Dspwbwd liittalswb6sastmtimamapeorrotaaotdaaaratiam 7& oasraaSaa hm*S wi pww idoim by ameaaoim wodus d equy t ide ie omtd ayi smb bsbiet Abido& hmWw wb caw" ayemob &6iMt" dowtto bmtian d!e omWammhoft 7& faadoit am petid d msmddyadhraltomWrdosi a Oealpltad Alaasandmm¢tjts udio be immatom yt ws iia*aoowdaatahh&Mbrymdfr ooamueBm 1L NO= C Ctsmailureirtya b* bmbdtoisa6omWkwdby Coaditimd FeddC6sk Ptisbisiaumed BddiyDspaAsat bCitydNewpatHtlNosCeismeSmmhjdo7R010 appor" vaftpmmk Page 1 xi RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Person Date IS CULTURALRPSOURCES Poor to the boom of a puff pm the pojat applicant Condition of Evide= of Prig W theissuaooeof Planning Depart SW provide wrimmevkk=tothe CityofNewport Badrthat aqualified approval paleontologist retained gadiogpram@ and Building Dept p kartokgulhasbemretamedto oireve Wading activities and salvage and to perform site cdaloex fossils as neoesay. The pskodologni shall be preseri at the pm survedlma, gadag aoofermx shall establish procedures for resmme aaver7lmoq and shall estabi* in Coopration with the pojod dsvdopa, proaAues fa tmVoranly lashing a red'ir work to psnid savrpimg ideuaifiation, and evaluation of the falls lfmgw arrizolopealtakontoftiral resa rmsare dssoove ed, which or radirscling of Fa(W& the P o13nt shall npcat such fin& W to the pmjed dewdopa Sort to the City of Newport Beads The paleontologist shalt d km=appopriate actions, m 000paabo u with the pojed & vdope , winds emwe popes• exploratian adra salvage. E= vatedfndsshallbeoffacdtodwCitycfNewportBack or its desipee, onafirsfmfinalbasisThe applka trmyrddasaid Ends ifwrinm assurance is provided fiat 9" will be"edy p¢saved in Orange County, unles said Ends are ofspecial dgnifiaooe, or amustum in Otmge Courdy indicates a desire to study andrw display them at the vim , in wbkh rase Kara shall be dmstcdtothe City, arias@see. These adkm as well asfinal mitigation and dhpa lion of the re auce% shall be subjed to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prig to the final of the Vxft paw% the pateodoiogist shall arbmR a follow-uprp for approval by the City wbkh shall include the period of impedim, a atatogue and analysis of the fossils fourxl, and pesnarepraitayafihe Eaelt i3((s1.Y' siFiai.iti`(: r:r;cgrtt Jw:4[a!a75o7d:u7rRfs7:r9:.auO•rrb69 i:\:1 Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSIED MITIGATED_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project will occur in two phases: earthwork and habitat restoration. A Restoration Ecologist (LSA) will ensure that all an permit requirements are met. In addition, the Restoration Ecologist will monitor the work and prepare the necessary reports specified In this HRPS. Monitoring will include all aspects of this project from site preparation (including grading) and installation to maintenance activities and long-term performance. The Grading Contractor will clear all existing vegetation and excavate the slide in accordance with the Engineers plans and all permits. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Baker & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 12,1999 to November 12,1999 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments re ardi g the adeguacv of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Demoment at the above address by November 12. 1999. A final report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. n MEMORANDUM November 9, 1999 TO: Jay Garcia FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Park Newport grading After reviewing the subject document, there is one aspect which should be changed. The proposed Mitigation Measures 1,2 & 3 should be rewritten to delete reference to the Public Works Department. MM Nos. 2 3 are most directly associated with the Building Department as they relate to work on private property. MM No. 1 now falls to the Deputy City Manager. (I think he picked up the NPDES program at last night's City Council Meeting.) so] MEMORANDUM DATE: November 30, 1998 FROM: Jay Elbettar, Building Director RE: Building Director's Acceptance and Approval of Negative Declaration Document in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Applicant — Park Newport Apartments, 1 Park Newport LOCATION: 1 Park Newport ACTION: Approval of the mitigated Negative Declaration for a slope stability and repair located at 1 Park Newport, the Park Newport Apartments. The Building Director finds that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence the project, as conditioned by the mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. AUTHORIZATION: Section 15356 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines the "Decision - making body" as any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. In this particular case, the project involves issuance of a Grading Permit by the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Section of 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that any advisory body (Planning Department representative in this case) of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision making body (Building Official) shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. The decision making body shall approve and adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. ay e ar, Building Director Attachments: Notice of Determination Negative Declaration and supporting documentation cc: Applicant Property Owner F•\USERS\PLN\ I PD-UP\PD-APPR\ I PKNPT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED NOV 3 0 1998 GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 1 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949) 644-3225 NOV 3 0 1998 N6FJCE OF DETERMINATION GARYL.GRANVILLE,Clerk-Recorder Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 1 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in cb pliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number. City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments rQtnplex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998_(Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will Q will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. Q A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures Z were were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings Q were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. ls--tz, November 30, 1998 Javier 9. Garcia, S"ehior Planner Date F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\l PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTNODDCUMT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FILING Enclosed are two copies of a Notice of Determination for filing as required by Public Resources Code Section 21152. Please stamp one copy "Posted/Filed" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the NOD. Compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21089(b) and Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is provided as follows: Enclosed is a check in the amount of $888 ($850 as required for an EIR project + $38 County Clerk filing fee). Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1288 ($1250 as required for a Negative Declaration project + $38 County Clerk filing fee). Q Enclosed are two copies of a Certificate of Fee Exemption as provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and CCR Title 14, Section 753.5, and a check in the amount of $38 County Clerk filing fee). The approval associated with the enclosed NOD is one of a series of actions that are part of the same project. The required DFG fee was paid at the time the Notice of Determination was filed for the first such action on this project. As provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(g), no additional DFG fee is therefore required. Enclosed is the $38 County Clerk filing fee. 9 The City is a Responsible Agency for this project. Code Section 711.4 will be satisfied by is the $38 County filing fee. The fee requirements of Fish and Game as the Lead Agency. Enclosed If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 644-3200. I S. Garcia, 36ior Planner ' Date F \USERS\PL.N\SHARED\1 FORMS\NEG-DEC\04-COVR.MEM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED NOV 3 0 1998 PARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949) 644-3225 N O V 30 1998 NO TLICE OF DETERMINATION GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -RecorderD„ nt:D1ITV Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number. City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia _ (949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments r 2mplex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the tap of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. -- An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were r were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. 9a't:' ,(,(, November 30, 1998 Javier S. Garcia, $t3hior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOMNENDMO\PARKNP7\NODDCUMT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 B. Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. C. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. n Q November 30, 1998 '' (' n= Date Ja ier S. Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOMI\PENDING\PARKNPMFG-EX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P S T E D3300NewportBoulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NO U 1998 949)644-3225 GAR L. G ILLE, Clerk -Recorder NOTICE OF DETERMINATION sv DEPUTY Tn• wiled in the County of Orange, California Oar L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111138 , 00 19988501317 2:32pm 11/30/98 56 6179313 06 10 201 1 38.00 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24. 1998 _(Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: I. The City is 0 Lead Agency = Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project = will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. - An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were _ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations = was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were = were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. 4.t ¢ "=. November 30. 1998 Javier/S. Garcia, enior Planner Date F.\USERS\PLN%SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPi\NODDCUMT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME P T E D CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION N 0 V 0 199a De Minimis Impact Finding GAR L. G I LE, Clerk -Recorder BY DEPUTY A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 B. Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. C. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. November 30, 1998- Date Javier S. Garc' Senior Planner City of Newport Beach F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ t PLANCOM\PENDRJG\PARKNP'MFG-EX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949)644-3225 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) : Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. w November 30, 1998 Javi • S. Garcia, a for Planner Date F:IUSERS\PL.NISHARED\lPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPi NODDCUMT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Tel. No.: 916/445-0613) Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope alone the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Hiahwav Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site I and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope With some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER NOP Supplement/Subsequent NOT Joint Document Early Cons EIR (Prior SCE No.) EA Final Document lZ Neg Dee Draft EIS Other DmfV'EIR Cl Other FONSI Local Action Type General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation Cl General Plan Amendment Master Plan Cl Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Dev. Use Permit Q Coastal Permit Community Plan Site Plan land Division (Sub -division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) Q Other Grading Permit for slope stability and repair Development Type Residential: Units Acres Water Facilities: Type MGD Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Cl Transportation: Type Commeroial•Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq.tt. Acres Employees_ Power: Type Watts Cl Educational` Waste Treatment Type Recreational Hazardous Waste: Type El Other. surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document AestheticfVisual Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality Agricultural Land Forest Land/Fire hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater Air Quality CJ Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Ripadan 0 Archeologic/Historic Cl Minerals Wildlife 121 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Coastal Zone 0 Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing Dminage/Absoption Population/Housing/Balance Toxic/Hazardous Land Use Economic/Jobs Public Service/Facilities Cl Traffic/Circulation Cumulative Effects Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation Other F.\USERS\PLMI FORMSVJEG-DEC\03NOCOPR.DOC. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949) 644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: lPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apaatments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date Javier S. G rcia Senior PI ner F:\USERS\PI-MSHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPIWEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (i Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope; Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems 21 Water Air Quality Transportation/ Circulation C1 Biological Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards El Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Q Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Rl I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signat re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPT\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 0 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) C) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 E1 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) c) d) e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health ha potential health hazard? (1,2' Exposure of people to existir sources of potential health hr 1,2) Increased fire hazard in area flammable brush, grass, or tr 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise le 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an upon, or result in a need for r altered government services of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilitie including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a 0 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred 0 uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for 0 neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational 0 opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential 0 to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 VL Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EM 1997. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. J An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 2 Mitieation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites I and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. 5. Air Quality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Bioloeical Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. ) nerev and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for tdmporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of NewportBeach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay 6 Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Garden Grove SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ml COUNTYA..i• ,, RE r yo TUSTIN a t,4,• SANTA ANA F ya r0 IRVINE CEFTA Voy~ a FrePIV4 n A 9 NEWPORTBEACH BEACH PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE LAKE LAGUNANIGUEL DANAPOINT 2 MISSIONVIEJO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CULBEPUSON,ADAMS&ASSOCIATES -- - PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 v vJI1111 h ,iu nuu... r•gll NORTH Scale: V = 400' Stabilization Sites a. UppWe" Newport Bay 4t 71 Of 40 I' } \P 6 rtk , qF 6V'IP 4oa 4w New 14 A 4 RI, r' pw-Fgr 4j iY - ': -Y Looking south at S ion ff mrsa vua mmcvru «nao sm ww m uw rw «.uwamz LEGEND m c.m axwa um a.aarz curt mew iam Qr rrmenx nu« EXHIBIT 6 1Pmrna zr c r iao EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY SUMMAR' mn* xo r GRACING 4oRCXCN M0 NO M np 61tWf! RMI XRCM O Mm f 61ERI S.C110II,CLFMQ0110 Y. O.>mt O] WR 0O61 IXNM1CVRM pId RF Rl4p96I=µO RMI OW 9 i xpQO t RpILC1UiMpIKp MR SYO RA O ttM[ HR mL V.V OC RLO T0. HM M SM u0 RA p1Y 0196i 2 O S RXI NA.5 510. MYMYML t 4W OlY 61[Mlff4 G1 STORM DRAIN Qmaz+r cv n=u cuvurm)4op oXX =av RAm1 v ms.X m=.=Xo X5o4:.-® Go, G GLY) R91 ¢=NEWT/JKIpI ]vµTl¢,W 9y9119171t5 , G O¢[nf iMffi®1 9m.51xIC MI ip XWRm 0.mAy6 M1m lW W C1A N Y /LL W/:0 6 H NQ 40t40Y IK IMIC M1I® ml9iwucman[ nII I ImnWLJ Y Ylx H GE m1IMn! G-ABEGIILW HOn tv xmna 1 I < p I IHmn n•ec•m G'mmva<mummmlusmxl 4= LEGEND iX l. m) LYx ms,nc srtw o==X mKm]+1 K9» O[v]iIw R iIOMXE 9W XiglMugO V,U 15(p SOR wec ra=. mMGiO SR6 %[ ulws mxmaw spoani zl» E E -( 4awmcwYamo..wu. X.w xo wu Ian IIpM aT 6 M WPX 9APK C0.0 Svcxa swz w,c w.z.umrz on.Wsvo. mmnx Ia z WSXlaq nnusrtr-mtao,n®rn Mx+U aX ne wr oe Ho.nluur r,.m xo wuaww'1 msrnw an a M uswl Xxoxc cme wa.o sw=s va-tmm n.Mmm.Io""mvE'swia nWIX19WLS A[ -slice fllOpf NR2 vRNC wafM f9wz A16d ap1601®TM9APq U/RVL OCYA91utau'm XA ¢X4SD BtMan45 CIa4 aXm0. +YRMnc wwY m.v4 al¢tnlm m, mol ImS M/lYZ HY0 LNTERCEPTOR DffCH DETAIL 1TEMPORARY CONCRETE SLOPE LINING DETAIL e mamcml ¢ wI m mu= wr DETAIL awu 0 EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all, mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design Upon project approval, a copy of the approved.project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved, plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the, City will approve the report„ request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shalt be inspected Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be property owner issuance of grading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial gmding/constmction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. 2. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Approval mutrne monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Department. property owner issuance of grading permit 3. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works control measures of the Chys grading ordinance and all applicable local approval grading permit Department and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. WATER 4. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval grading permit Department subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the constriction area approval grading permit Department and the prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent Planning Department intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scmb habitat A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be m milamed in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the it construction fencing. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROG NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Aparb cents October 19,1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Constmetion activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section10.28.040 approval grading permit XII. AESTHETICS Light and Glare7. Provide a rough surface an the concrete apron to minimize Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department glare. glare. Approval grading permit and the Planning Department XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillece. paleontologist shall be present at the pn.gmding conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall detemdne appropriate actions, in cooperation with the pmject developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal bans. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\I PLANCOMIPENDINGIPARKNM W TMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date 4. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval grading permit Public Works subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Program monitoring Department Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. established prior to the 2. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and issuance of grading permit Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected Approval routine monitoring by Program monitoring Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be property owner established prior to the submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for issuance of grading review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is permit continuing to sluff, based upon the insults of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Condition 3. The concocted facilities shall be routinely maintained by of Approval Plan Check and routine monitoring by Program monitoring Public Works Department the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public property owner established prior to the Works Department. issuance of grading permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condition of approval Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Department control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local grading permit and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the Cray Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). S. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. approval grading permit Department and the Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the Planning Department coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the star of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. Page 1 RM RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date it. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Sectionl0.28.040 approval grading permit 14. AESTHETICS Light roviPdea 7. andmu`' ugh surfaceon the concrete apron to minion. ovi roze. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department glare gl Approvalgrading permit and the Planning Department 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for acheologicallpaleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, m well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F:\USERS\ PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTNMTMSRTAB I Page 2 we, E C E I V E [ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED OCT 2 31998 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 O C T 23 1998949) 644-3200 GARY L GRANVILLE. Gerk•Rmder GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk•Recoider Br. DEPUTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION By_______ DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. t-7f A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Ir 1 attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will -be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. I W Date (a /23 A/ Javier S. Ctdreia Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNP[\NEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some. vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain Inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the Inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where It currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an Interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the Inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying In exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Transportation/ Public Services Circulation Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources Cal Geological Problems 0 Water Air Quality Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards 21 Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Utilities & Service Systems 0 Aesthetics El Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERINIINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. p I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signat ire Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Printed Name Date P.\USERSIPLMSHAREDI I PLANCOMWENDINGiPARKNPi1CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 Ef I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Faulfrupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Z 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes In topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10.11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) o) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1.2,9,10,11.12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,49,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No' Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise avE for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standai contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation'! 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors tc pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or cause any ch in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATI Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or trail congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from desigr features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency acces access to nearby uses? (1,2, Potentially Significant Impact 11 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El Lessthan Significant Impact 171 No Impact 21 Q 0 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. 131OLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in Impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less then No' significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q L Q Q Q Q Q CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) C) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 21 0 R1 0 El a 0 0 C 1 Ef CHECKLIST Page 10 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIi. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No' Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Cd Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed In an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. FXUSERSIPLN\SHAREDIIPLANCONflPENDING PARKNPRCKLIST 55:"4 Vt, CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644.3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plnn - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968). it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time. (he site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District, The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed far construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50170 or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-1005'e) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of"bluff' in the Zoning Code, As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -arcs of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction, The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Poaulation/Housing/Frnplovment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new Jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs.'' A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitieation Measure No. 1 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Mitieation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Mitigation Measure Nn. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and acopy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrate). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that wilt be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately I,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites i and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project wilt not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. d That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. S. Air Onality Construction/Operational impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only (raffle associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the,number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs alone the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed, along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume sonic energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7.00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Afiriearinn Measure Nn. h All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilitiei and Service Svstems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aestheties The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require lon, term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said rinds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. 1lrandatory Findines or Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES r COUNTY Garden Grove Riverside SANTA ANA NCOSTA90!d MESAs • NEWPORTBEACH c PROJECT SITE el MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKEOREST Pd. 0`O S4 MISSION VI0 O SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO C DANA POINT SAN • 2 CLEMENTE\` RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY r-- SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CULBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 IZ r n ' NORTH : c o r •, t ' asp r• # ) ,;'- ' ' s ti Scale 1" = 400, A ' 1 ` • \ 1rTit K ' . .rat. ul.a a y. I q Stabilizafik "e esUppe Newport t,Msr t, ..-:, x.• , ., Bay! Q-%''"`' •. * J rR 2' r _... f . c ate. w• , ` A. -. i'..ti4. L4; •.c "a .a . 1. y \aKi. 2..kSL'ite'•-}. . T• l r fir'!''. i r Ubking:•southw r.."^-,.-., A._ __:-.`. ..... .....-.. ` _--__•" -- BACK 8A _-_-----'--- R4 e MSm.rao•sunxmiPnw" i.now rnrrYs O1MRP.ZR.O0IPPPI¢.pyPMrlMl lr/. IY.P Of OM..t"1R.AI RIrYRR RY.t )>1.p 4WPM.3 S n- Lrjl — rr ©<...Rw.sRSReuR r.' EXHIBIT-6 SACK BAY DRIVE_ .....:;; r..—:"Le.....,. . 1 p CONSTRUCTION NOTES Qi u.wa.e nwR ru mp]R]n uoM j ` ., ' a'Ortan w'do an `wort o•i::anv r m.va Q] Rye ".pnm"OS°cwin.4 aartosr ].wQ LEGS , C.C,1QWIOIOppr]a pYad M]IInORW ]12 Q. wwan'au.aert,n,•Ra pan d>an]xarw .wu]n .4w p mp n.n O] W]a waa a r{Ylpp wYq aA n..w qn Ye Rapa.apN11] /,,, ,r! nYoafv)wvcm•u.n O flp ]r1w c fnY .io SR b ]M']Ra OM1O YRn Rb D CK"". a PARK NEWPOWAPARTMEMS} ETpSKKJ REPAR PLAN "" dia' EE— mm_ I CfiY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 7 al,wwc Qilwwl w«,ew iu rw-ir ww<-< au aw<wir tia4irw1 w.w<w w.s.r Ql wTTNW Pfa,lw.u. ws a ytlrN. .bOOiMnW PKViwM .K> fOiR „«tI<YT KMv. <r I.Y K.}<w TrW Pfw)l l V Of4w Wt1f•V.-1-4.0 arY,•M.4.I Nwrlw IN1 STO11Y d11W OPN<.rCVI(4rW f#Yw yV Onf u' 4 T<t rPrrRMssl.twrrwt N•e •V es.,vNe--YI ro e<rrr{w.[T fP<v<w aww.rpr« a I wOA.ti O<.YN OrTN 1Qrrr.P6 WmK N1P!r4..Nt u.u._v.w .uM r_.uw ••w-v-• fYc N .Y! b w Wv--P .l Mrr.01MPOOOI.-I r\ MEACEPfOR OfTCN OETAIL NINYMt KSTIg1 A•A i IFWW i P 1 7-E FO-BABY CONCRETE SLOPE LtIFXi DEfA VIYKR,.MKY< LEGEND mtsJ uaes• mws,N.IfY. cm=> l.+.cWww R RI NY P.K 40 vwtIN4rwrV(t O M pv,.,K yrpNN PrYf I<r r er qu J s a wY r< PY Krf P.4IPr¢w. ydy iN wr.aly m.IM<+PtWf l rtei oErAc m EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. NIITIGATION NIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19,1998 Implementation blethodor Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGICPROBLEMS(Earth) I_ An annual inspation of the completed facilities shalt be Conditioner Plan Cheek and Program monitoring Publie Works completed by a registered geologist. 7Le fxilifies shalt be inspected Approval routine mannoring by Lmahiishedpriurlothu Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspecuon shall be Property owner issuanceof grading submitted to the City of Newport Bunch Public Works Director for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the stope, is continuing to sluff, baud upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be naluired as determined by the Public Works Director. Alt mnelial work raluirud by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. 2. The constructed fatihties shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program momtoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Appmeal routine monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Department. roapenyomnv issoancturgrasng peanut 7. The pmjea will comply with the erosion and siltation Contrition of Plan Check Prior to the wvanee of Public Works central mctsurus of the Cityls grading ordinance and all applicable local approval grading Permit Department and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. WATER 4. Tltat die project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the isruanet. of Public Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall b: approval grading pertmt Department subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Depamrtent"Cityauthoriud Grading -Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction facing shall be installed along the Conlidonof Plan Check Priortuthuissuarrceuf Public Works edge of the evutal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction ana approval grading permit Depamnent and the prior to the start of constnetioo. The construction fencing will present Planning Department inuosion by construction workers and equipmerit into the coastal sage stub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shalt be maintained in place throughout construction Period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencin Page 1 Implementation Method of 'Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Construmion activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building DepartmentbytheCityofNewportBeachNoiseOrdinanceSection10.28.040 approval grading permit MI. AISTHETICS Light and Glaro 7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mininti7z Condition or Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department glare Approval grading permit and the Planning Department XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning MpartmentapplicantshallprovidewrittenevidencetotheCityofNewportBeachapprovalpaleontologistretainedgradingperoritandBuildingDept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The survedlance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archcological/paleontolugical resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologiczUpalcontological resources arc discovered, which require long -tern halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. uu, vur.,"uu. r uvr r MDK [Am Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation July 1, 1999 G\' 011 9 City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department3300NewportBoulevard Newport Beach, CA 0\ 92658-8915 Attn: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner Re: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) Dear Mr. Garcia: This letter is to inform you that Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) has been retained by Gerson Bakar & Associates to provide archaeological and paleontological services during the grading for slope stability for the Park Newport Apartments. We will attend the pre -grade meeting and will set forth the controls to be maintained during grading as well as establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural and/or scientific resources. Carol R. Demcak, Orange County certified archaeologist will supervise the archaeology. Milos Velechovsky, Orange County certified paleontologist, will supervise the paleontology. If, in the course of grading, significant cultural or scientific resources are encountered, we will notify the Project Developer and the City of Newport Beach, and a plan of mitigation will be worked out for the specimens. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. At the conclusion of grading we will prepare a report of the monitoring, which will include the number of hours worked, an inventory and analysis of the recovered specimens, and the name of the repository where the specimens will be housed. Sincerely, Carol R. Demcak President/Supervising Archaeologist Copy: Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar; Lorrie Lausten, RBF 1114 N. Gilbert Street, Anaheim, California 92801 Phone (714) 491-9702 Fax (714) 491-9766 Iv I••.I '•N. P.O. BOX 1768 Gary L. Granville R E C E I V E r)Orange County Clerk -RecorderP.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 99 JAN -8 A9 _g 4) 834-4625 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF KEWPORT BEACH Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of"Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 11/30/98 It remained posted for 30 (thirty) calendar days. Cary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the County of Orange Rachel Moctemma lin Deputy JAN 0 5 1999 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resources Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency ***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** a:\eir\eir30dy) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P S T Er3300NewportBoulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NO 0 1998949)644-3225 GAR L. G ILLE, Clerk -Recorder NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BY DEPUTY Tn• FZilecl in the county of orange, california Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII 3 e , 00 19988501317 2;32pm 11/30/98 856 6179313 06 10 Z01 1 38.00 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: i I Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998-(Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. A&6=_ November 30, 1998 Javier S. Garcia, enior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPT\NODDCUMT A. B. C. D. E. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME w CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION N 0 V De Minimis Impact Finding GAR L. G I BY Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 Clerk -Recorder Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projecVs potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. November 30, 1998 Date Javier S. Garc' Senior Planner City of Newport Beach F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNP'MFO•EX ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 714) 644-3200 A. General Information 1. Applicant/Agent: Kevin Culbertson Phone: (949) 581-2888 Address: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 2. Property Owner: Gerson Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 391-1313 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 B. Project Description 1. Project Name: Slope Stability Repair Work (Grading Permit) 2. Project Location: Park Newport Apartment Complex (1 Park Newport) 3. Assessors Parcel #: 440-132-52; 440-251-07; 440-251-08 4. Permit Application: GP ***-98 5.a. Proposed Use: N/A 5.b. Project Size: N/A 5.c. Site Size: Site 1: 1,000 square feet 5.d. Building Height: Site 2: 2,200 square feet 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: September 25,1998 N/A Existing Land Use Designation: General Plan: MFR - Multi -family Residential Zoning: P-C Specific Plan: N/A LCP: East Bay Area: (11) Park Newport Previous Governmental Approvals: CDP 5-97-250 Other Governmental Approvals Required: Federal: N/A State: California Coastal Commission Regional: N/A Local: Grading Permit Begin Construction: November/1998 Estimated Occupancy: N/A 1 C. Potential Environmental Effects Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two specific locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph showing the location of the project in relation to Back Bay Drive/Upper Newport Bay. Also shown on Exhibit 3 are the locations of the two proposed stabilization sites. The proposed project consists of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Exhibits 4 and 5 present photographs of the existing slope. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e. Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1- Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" stormdrain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details of the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets and 286 feet of 12' corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. Analysis: 1. Land Use and Plannine A. Existing Land Use: LOS ANGELES r > COUNTY! 3 Riverside m Garden Grove Freeway TUSTIN 9 d • s.97 SANTA ANA IRVINE COSTAMESA Aj NEWP\ C, BEACH BEACH PROJECT SITE 9 MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKE LAGUNA NIGUEL MISSIONVIEJO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CULBERTSON. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 411= CULBERTSON, AAAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS Aerial Photo with Sites Indicated EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 1'117.1 - , po BACK BAY DRIVE_ry--_--- - a MO •IV I.IfA PSv-x[RmOpMpM1'wwR M9 Mt sKl M Y pm 1YID tm¢C iM LV0 MO et v1Y P O 06[ `401«GIdMIR I P.W fuO MM Q' mau..n nr vrP «P+mmw.0 m ue rP m.za z LEGEN JIXR YP[fMf11 ICIg1 Y11f OI Ii¢C1 ,1//S EXHIBIT 6 13A- DRIVE 01 n 562pNc M CONSTRUCTION NOTES r A 0 NOM OROInIpI RA'1136410t /, rliilVmpC3uNYC9pLtlCVImnM •^, / 0 WR 9qN 1O6pNNCDICI NIOI RA ¢IKp tR9 RIl1 w>' / . OW iFRitlN R, 3nKp9tfii NN R.(ti ,.H, / Of 064 NR Tht YRA 0C RYO 3R RK NJ I•Yd Y0 RA 1nKp96ii 0 SI 6 RMM LFL-u031P iVN iD{-BW CRRInWIf 4M1• POVDIC- E•, y ,. \ © O4B,i NIgYM pM W3 ORRSI00015KC.d WR OMA[1 N NI6 z EXHIBIT 7 mm vo my pl gNC a"wacxO nrp ofp'tcaaw°u" mne Noxwvw aan c+w.orna O NY O II R.f.WIM.9iL+i r/M60RE.1flLWm Qu:rsawi"`iom. mwrw wxwsvrz No wv m'rs aww iva crwrtcmn ra occ.. w aarx.w nN a mac N[I r.. vrua Haamrw xa+aa No vw muwamx m ``r+ v.nma-.'°O`Ne s`miww m11°viralw an n avwr c+w lL STORM GRAINwnlr... Nzuc¢vx.ae>amu aulr v n.mwv r u. mzc .4 rl puwwcm me<lavw aoawca rn.ro.uvu arw n'I^ .our nm 4 / um++v mcrcu ev¢ nruuay.1Oam)nv varwrNHcsm s.o+uc uo soar uovu. m mmc¢wa msimnwnw wn>a ne murr mwcrsc ue aarvm : ttlnw.w.a tton uvmw. WNC 011I9aAYC ®IQA Y09lM+RCNr / l ! MSM®C 9R i•w o 0"m u+nw - .r rzr-vavzca a.LLII / I I rwmo mc.umc upaOOl TN iY mx `` NVRO1+rxvv NO1rM.Bn+off 11 I + I u®Ort IMO I i ' vmiu m IMdR.IYOt nt. IrrIfl .u.Wm2m maz aen u M wm.amiv aac auu s rm-+mm m M uo.cmi n M samc a wa.¢ vmvc 9WL s Y MM 46a®A M OaYCOrOIIWOYaO INTERCEPTOR DrTCH DETAIL_ w++o zau maitwC[II 9uII 0n®Jna IDm i` IIC+w ]y6 Mi1NW 1 mC t. a iwaow avuzrz r-nezne.wa.M unl a.x) a uiienwwum imr"v ro1On nmoi2 "°M0aoe.o.v+.vu a .roi w.m n x sa,tic orvn waa JJln Mnc wrx WRans imID of mm Gel TEMPORARY CONCR= SLOPE LINING DETAIL mmsNr LEGEND ml 16Y Ow O1V.Dw n na..a rs rmam awe¢ a o. urwr uc wnme rs anawc Q r.ortcrn wn w"aa urs¢ aor au. m nw.s.im snn ver w.a.u. N+wn 1 INLET DETAIL wr m w+a g m6ro 1[Ml Riuf n EXHIBIT 8 The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sand bags that have been previously placed on the surface toprevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach GeneralPlanLand Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. nin - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5,1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-1009o) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with. in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housine/Emnloyment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the cty's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long term affects on local employment. 3. Earth 11 The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29,1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides which occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.' Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs? A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be. hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will.minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I Art annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected dtuingApril or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June L Should it be detennined that the slope is continuing to fail, based upon the results of the annual inspections, ftatherrentedial grading/constntctiort work shall be required as detennined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 77te constructedfacilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geoteehnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 12 4. H drolocv The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor, ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12 corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. S. Air Ouality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and not will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 13 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub which extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The project will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitat that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. tion Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction,period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Enera and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safetv The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Noise impacts will be further reduced by limiting the hours of construction. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. 14 to 6.30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. n MitiYadon Measure No. "r All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services and Utilities CThe proposed project will not have a need for public services or utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services du ilitiep-.1Luva. go5 zj1tAesthetics106, The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short- term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one- half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. 1. Lleht and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may 15 be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Of Mlti [ion Measure NoY ' v4 1 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare.e yl. Iq Cultural and Historic Resources 5 wV'o-_,dam The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during constructionrr In the event radina, all 1 The project applicant during the project to All material shall b tl 15. Recreation archaeological/paleontological remains/fossils are uncovered during excavation and/or in that area o ect property untiles 'gproprj to data recovery program can be I. The co f such progsgm sha ie responsi.bility of the project sponsor. don to all archaeological/pal tologica' material/fossils, historic or prehistoric, recovered in sti lion that has the pr er fac 'ties for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. rred to he approved fa ' ity after lab atory analysis and a report have been completed. The shall be nproved b e Planning Depar ent based oryxfecommendation from the qualified The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove,the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay'Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16 Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct to the best of knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. Ken Diessel, Director of Facilities Services Agent for Park Newport, LTD. Print name of owner or representative and Title Signature For Office Use Date filed: Fee: _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 P ANNINGEDEPARTMENT IVEI) By < 2501 PULLMAN STREET CITY OF NFINPORT BEACHSANTAANA, CA 92705 DEC 1 1 1998 December8,1998 AM PM Javier Garcia File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH# 98101084 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Subject: Park Newport Apartments. Dear Mr. Garcia: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project is for Slope Stability/Repair Work and a (Grading Permit). The project is located along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of future developments that could potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call Aileen Kennedy on (949) 724-2239. SMerey, Robert F. Jos ph, Chic Advance Planning Branch C: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Praveen Gupta, Environmental Planning Paul Chang, Toll Roads Roger Kao, Hydraulics CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Tel. No.: 916/445.0613) Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1. Park Newport The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 &440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Hiehwav Waterways: Newport Bay Railways: Schools: Airports: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site I and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER NOP Supplement/Subsequent NOT Joint Document Early Cons EIR (Prior SCE No) EA Final Document 0 Neg Dec Draft EIS Other Cl Dmft/EIR Other FONSI Local Action Type General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Dev. Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit Community Plan Site Plan land Division (Sub-disision Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) 0 Other Grading Permit for slaIN stability and reair Development Type Residential, Units Acres Winer Facilities: Type MOD Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Transportation: Type Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ O Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Power. Type Wous Educational, O Waste Treatment: Type Recreational Hazardous Waste: Type 0 Other. surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document Aesthetic/ Visual Flood Plain,Hooding Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality Agdcultuml land Forest tand(Fire bazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater Cl Air Quality 0 Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wedand/Riparion 0 Archeoloeic/Historic Minerals Wildlife 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Graung Coastal Zone 0 Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing Dminage/ Absoption Population/Housing/Balance Toxic/Hazardous land Use O Economic/Jobs Public Service/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Cumulative Effects Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks 0 Vegetation 0 Other CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949) 644.3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 FX71County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is IJ 7f attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision -makers) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposer) project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date IVA2 Javier S. G rein Senior Pla ner R\USERS%PLMHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNP7 NEODEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1-Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems 0 Water Air Quality Transportation/ Circulation 0 Biological Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards 0 Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities & Service Systems 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that tha proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signs re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date v12?//1 F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDLNG\PARKNP7\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 H I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated o a 0 0 R1 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) a) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Substantial reduction in the am-' -` of groundwater otherwise avail for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, c temperature, or cause any char in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (E VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATIO Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Significant Impact 11 r Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 1-1 rn on r- Lessthan Significant Impact 11 No Impact a a r r-A d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) VIII. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Po Sig tentially Potentially nificant Significant mpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Q El Ell Q El El ElQ El ElQ El Q Q Q ElQ Q El El Q El El El ElQ Q El Q CHECKLIST Page 10 Less than Significant Impact No Impact Q El Ell Q El El ElQ El ElQ El Q Q Q ElQ Q El El Q El El El ElQ Q El Q CHECKLIST Page 10 Q El El Q El El El ElQ Q El Q CHECKLIST Page 10 Q El Q CHECKLIST Page 10 CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a Q physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred Q uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for Q neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational Q opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential Q to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential Q to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that Q are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERSIPLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDINOTARKNPT\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949) 644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March. 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff. of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading. cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit tCDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add newjobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. i The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. '- A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 2 Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hvdroloev The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. 5. Air Quality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parldne The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer. procedures for temporanly halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance. or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades. allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location CULBEPUSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 NORTH Scale: 7" = 400' ` six. ,. <y :. t . At" i .7 t• x• Stabilization Sites Uppe Newportfi - n ) = :• Bay y 6 Jrx rlyy_ t VIP Fy kj kint I D 7r' - 1 t ;_, , ' 1Looki fl o%th t • . I— Vim;"• CI d' c4j;•: i _ it .. y •.r1.",f';?,;' 'ram Lgoki n'g =south rlrn O ~p to auwaw..inwroaas'r"oem"nr`v.m'mr w ,art Rw wRtwl n,rYe Ol r e,. _P . Ia.P Rr4PfRIl M/ua Qi mm. r ia r.v v,wanw.n ru.e,srra r.rawr• J _ AIR) BACK BAY DRIVE __----- --- I_ oe - f 1 1 P a[11 .IPm P.,a,rn 1• 1 `, rQ aemn.ua EXHIBIT 6 BA .. T..... II•r -- 1 r VIP gOI[wc 1 II I \ r p P,.YnIN.ro PRR.a. i4oRPPwRwr0MOANO Pr RUB Ttv O a LviLirlA iw\i qn,[9 rtMY0RWRN Vi91 O W NAµ lgnRq PgrMglYgM11 MO RY O W3>4 1VLw wORLV R.r g1Yw N\IlKnw i cwll YLl nR rrY qnw La wY M,Pe Ye R. arY wMnL O 1RwY rW0 SR.\ iMfF YI Lam\ R\ PM1 q YNPI qrw ww 9 i \oww.n.vrn+elw wn 111111 RaPL mPPOLe wn rw m nIq IR / 1 T. 1 •. 1 1• P7 ; u'1 ' I. . .._. ... EXHIBIT 7 GRMING Q qut'RwAQ.w rim.A°gn wa uRq'gonn a u gYRWNG PiIP /•R.( AA P gwgr 14? O[GIP Oi wTS tat>A ItR•PMR f[t0. fINQOROKK Wm .0 OAAIPMgtMP Wti MqM tY• O t R W9 It qqt PLRCaP tPPW PM[ti•Y bM tTA. OO mOtq[t isa VlPPgYA t4I1PilYC MIP Rt.a Pftltl l4 O fip tt•M K MwfA LAMFG MOAq q.PtgiP a• STORY ORNb wqa tr cv of u.q.gm> fbr.vr O NONR.PaPPIagM.e tllgG irO Yq O Yuwru.aD) wu Alr.wr/yR P frwtPG .w iwr..gr•R lgwq CA.AO mQaa O C..tCYaaPPN IAA- qrP p M.nN W.wt.T T t.r t.q ll Pial d atgsa Vwn.ul N.PI gY Oi rL11JTEROEPfOR ORCH DETAL ql b fAl[ YIAM R:raWcaLL W gO.aq.C® q/rt K Oo[R` m 1=^'7.- !` rn rwnm emu v ICI I A.,u.... U u...N. n• .,. I nr•w.ww. ntm lv.gnq In Awl. rI oG is ll•tlw ir'n i.ipn lIIn / tPq aq AOC .•r•. GPvq an Ku..Nrq.h IAPOFiARY CONCRETE SLOPE LMNQ DE7AL uu LEGEND mwl r vlRabw.u. Iw•NI n m WnaP wN 10n rww. s.q qq w q q qtn O MRGI wrVq we.vi wsr.wr.t AM On G wn.u[a vlHfPwa rLEf DETAL L'/ crbuq FXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grayling Project Park Newport Apartments Octotar 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Eurlh) 1. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall to insp a:ted Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department during April or May of each year. The exults or the inspection shall he property owner issuanec of grading subtitled to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for pennil review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon lice exults of the annual inspections, further remedial gmdmg/conslrucuon work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work nMuired by the City shall be completed by November 1 of thal year. 2. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Iepartnieia. property owner iswance of grading permit 3. 'Ile pmjMl will comply wilt the erosion and %Ration Condition of Plan Check Prior to the isurmme of Public Works wmml mlcasures of the City's guiding ordinance rand all opplieuble local approval grading lrennil Depnrtmionl and Suite building eades unit seismic design guidelines, including the fry limivotion unit (Imdlug Code (NHMC Scelion K(KI.10 or applicuble sections). IV. WATIM 4. 'Ibtd (lie project shall confirm Io the Nntlunnl Pollution Condition of 11hut Check I'dur to the lsmuita: ur Public Winks Discharge Elimination Sysicm (NPDE.S) requirements and %hall be approval grading pemtit Iepurtnerit subject to the approval of the Public Works Department mid the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. V11. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approval grading permit Department and the prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent Planning Department intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be imswcled not to enter into the coastal sage semb habitat beyond the comlraction fencing. Page 1 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURFS Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those bouts allowed Condition of Feld Check Priorto theissuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Burch Noisc Ordinance Se:tionI0.28.040 approval grading permit XII. AESTHETICS Light and Glare Condition Plan Check Prior issuance Building Ihep,utntem7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to rmniIran or to the of regla. Approval grading permit and the Planning Deparrnent XIV. CULTURAL RFSOURCIUS 8, 11ior In the issuance of it gmding Iwunil, the plojecl Cunditinnof lividcore of PniorIII the bsunnecof Planning Ikparnwnl applicant shall provide wti0en evidence In the Cily of Newpml Beach approval pnlwatologlsl reudnnl grading perndl and Building Dcpl that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to obwrve grading w perlbrin site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils :is necessary. 'the surveillance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference. shall establish procedure for archcological/palcomological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the pmjed developer, procedure for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit % ampling, identification, unit evaluauon of the fo+.+ds. If major ar: heologicat/palcurnological resources me discovered. which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/ or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City -of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds an: of special significance• or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire m study and/ or display them at the time:, in which case items shall be donned mr the Cily, or designee. These actions, as wall as final mitigation and disposition of the nyourccs, shall be subject to the approval of tic City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading pennit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F: USERSTLMSHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNFMTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23,1998 to November 22,1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. Gary L. Granville Orange County Clerk -Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 714) 8344625 NOV 3 0 1998 P.O. BOX 1768 Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of"Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 10-23-98 . It remained posted for 30 (thirty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the County of Orange By: Rachel Moctemma Deputy The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of gh county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days, unless otherwise required bylaw to be posted for 30 days The Cou= Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return thenotice to the local lead agency ***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local l d agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** a:\eir\eir30dy) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949) 644-3200 O C T 23 1998 NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARY L. GRANVILLE, clerk -Recorder By DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 7Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project. Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any gQu,estions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. 5---/-^4 .Qi. Date to I -x% I k r Javier S. ciaa Senior Planner I=iled in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiilllllllll 3s, 00 19988501189 2; 20pm 10/23/98 856 6177998 06 09 Z01 1 38.00 Q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Departme@t 949) 644-3200 m o I® co m W rn v Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) N J LL. U Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street m San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential FILED 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community OCT 2 3 1998 GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport BeachE°'_-_aa Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed Improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shoterete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shoterete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain Inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed In approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Transportation/ Public Services Circulation Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service 0 Geological Problems CAI Water Air Quality Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards 0 Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems R1 Aesthetics Rl Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. R1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation treasures that are imposed upon the proposed project. at n-n A- Signat re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date F:\USEIES\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCGM\PENDING\PARKNMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 R1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or*minority community)? 1,2,3) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudfiows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATT= : Would the proposal result in: a) Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Legg than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q Q Q Q CHECKLIST Page 6 0 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q 0 0 El 0 0 Q El 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy Conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q CHECKUST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C! 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less then No , Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Other governmental services? (1,2) Q XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) Q b) Communications systems? (1,2) Q c) Local or regional water treatment or Q distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) Q e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) Q f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) Q g) Local or regional water supplies? Q 1,2) XIII, AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic Q highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative Q aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) Q d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) Q XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? Q 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? Q 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) j Q CHECKLIST Page 10 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 2 0 z C1 0 CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XViI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less then No . Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. FdUSERSIPLMSHAREDU PLANCONNENDINO\PARKNPnCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644.3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannine A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B, Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of New7tort Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project dues not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. 7.onine - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1963), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff" as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newpotl Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36,e.-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading)." grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Pnnulation/Hnusine/Emnlovment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surfiicial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. '- A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface ruts -off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. 1 Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 MiNeatinn Measure Nn, i An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that (lows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the suit will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfull to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not he significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,500 square feel of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 2S6 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the ~eater to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between site% I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discltnrges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval orthe Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. 5. Air Ouality ConstructionlOnemtinmtl impact% The proposed project will result in minor impnets to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to duct during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project wHI not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiting new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mltieation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existingsupplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Tana Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motoriacd equipment for grading, placement of shuterete, construction of storm drains and backtilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance, Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements arc completed, there arc no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation A?ea care Nn. h All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Scction 10.28.040. 11. Publie Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefor, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Liehtand Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete.apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for tdmporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require Ion, --term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access :long the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Garden Grove ORANGE 1 • SANTA ANA COSTAMESA A NEWPOPBEACH c PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE 11, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Saaia9 ` TUSTIN ' Fast C 0 IRVINE 1 4 way c fill ORANGE LAKEPORES T gad' COUNTY Oa90° Sa MISSIONQ Hql O E1 VI.JO jO I s o C° J l O BEACH LAGUNA tBEACH NIGUEL 4 ; 1 Oaf°ga 1 O SAN JUAN ; I CAPISTRANODA J rim DIEGO POINT Ii COUNTY 2 SANCLEMENTE" . Regional Location Map CULBEPUSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 rJ, NORTH. Scale: 1" = 400' IN IL le Nil Stabilization Sites Altrig y Jb , • j + • • pp 4eW,/ NewportA r _. su , ;,..• Bay Pa J q Y ' JI Ile 01 0 t r f ' r• J ri vuY,o 1 p • u S• '•'+ i:r' ' r;Lookin9 ,r1o•a;Site 1 ry 4- 1 i AirA i .,.. a r r 1 w•f Y T 11-4 rxA Y Rll' ic11 y c t y ,• J.'',Locikii \.rho Q v."ae s+r°r`nm.-ess wa rw ra w am a r,v mR..aa a.c.r«e<.rmrv. wasrraay..«ama _ BACKS 0 Y___ Y__•_-.-----__'.--:.,-- i 1 , IFGEND o.wnaeam.wce irn a r.aa..rwz EXHIBIT .G ' - EE BAYDRIVE:: - ••....., .. um main lQ CONSTRUCTION NOTES t l odaur.rz'.loR amPn..m.w llx M lMI u nPa® Pr M QMOK n pill M M Pn Q nNr RI.x w9[4rd O MaA sR Jll6 y.Rn [PP.R M a9RP.4 WXP O wny p{Q.lgllDlp Plp 1p QlYd x[r]u9 R/x . Oi CM xMd rt 10. A]nCMMQ\4p nl.]WIIW s co.ss ..n merrpmnw sm n..arw eo nl Qr..wxns s"ro'nv: w a"'Ma-Ha .Piia"rwl xr"'o. m"rai•a Pn v v+vr Q.w 8\ t •. a-.. LEGEND .. nno. wnPxol v.n QI ..onv.n.z EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION OUANTITY SUMMARY can•. sac y..-n PO VaaCc nYmtw Krns ItwfPw.s¢Ylx Qi aPwr ::n w.nm.n YCPmm..cao-am au O Vq 10 YggP•yTtlPSw11 aW> OW"WA1L gOrtib.gPfYWMliMa1N apP am wMT.tYq nCTIR t TYMTaaYgPua afQ.i iu Y NaaMRYF4iMA~I i.LW.q O.VRRPIatb IaYf SId1Y ORNN gcwaKcl•Mx+ca.n®lxq+ar v p rTMyy mgMSgMO!®tlTrwaTL ]f Sf V C'4.Te4'PT fQ w 0' V ua a irtl/Ja Fla ao.a7wagnomwscwsam. 1 v.0 wne u TP Ma w,l . VtlalulW 1 nwwn aMR4 4 T tl YN LF.M4 MMar YMa <YqM TOAC # N tiP60M4sipn.a tlTERCEPfOR ORCN DEfAl X4[ r. am .a..w<w 1MI6iM VN,. N ra i ICI 4 nVa + Vau[ lIVl l Tn _ 4 maT aMv ' r1 1 1 wm.n KL'IIOIIAA I arm. q•YY.tl, 1 IINu..Ws61A• 4^MAR .+TtlII{L Y°a 4, 1 NR a.•f #OC vqut F.4AT MN of WM T.\"EMPORMY CONCRETE SLOPE LINING OETAL V +s 0 IN LEGEND w ao-c saY wn m geYan aqq P... I.+.r INY u+o aa. LW 4l•.T>• 4W.1MeYMI R Y/ .¢ MI MnA bOYYIR tlR 090[ O Iq.n n rtrtY O wnv.M ezrrttT.. PW tlr V Y•Ia. v ra.r.an w.n OVI Mr X. m.nr rnY nr l LET OEML H> q XYa EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATit.'E DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 implementation Method or Tinting or Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) I. An annual inspection of the completed faciiaies shall he Condition of Plan Check and Programttomtonng Public Nvurks xmpkaed by a registered geologist. The facilities sball be N'pecttl Approval none monitoring by oawbh hcdpnixtothe DcTanmmt during April or May of each )ear. The results of the inspection shall be prupert) owner Lssuanccorgrading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public We& Director for perimt review• before June 1. Should it be des errifi teJ that the slope is continuing to sluff. based upon the results of the annual impcniuros. Further remedial gmdingtconstmchen work shalt be nymrcd us rktmmimd by the Public Works Director. All reinerhat work required by the City shall be completed by No%anber I of that year. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routimly maintaitteed by Condiltunuf Plan Chcak and Program irxmnonng Public R'orks the property owner as daernlincd by the City of Newport Beach Pubhe Approval n uunc inoniumng by ntahhsfnJ prior to the fkTannx:nt R'orks Depaiarent. pnpcit)owrrcr issu.mceofgnaiing permit 3. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condnronof Plan Check Pnortotb:iauanccuf Pubiio NVorks control measures or the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local appmval grading perms Departima and State building cods and sastmc design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBNIC Section 15.114.140 or applicable sections). IV. WATER 4 That the project shall enn('orm to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Priortothe tb.uanceaf Publicl.Vorks Discharge Elimination System INPDES) requin:mmu and shall be appraval gmdnigpenmt Depaonnt subject to the approval of the Public N'orks Department and the Building Depanmcot orGty authorized Cuadmg Enginay. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S. Orange coreaniction Bmcing shall be installed along the Conditionof P6mChcck Prior tuthcLs,•uanccof Public Wells edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approval grading perma DgWmnt and the priorto the Smrl of enrtslNCUnn. The constriietim fencing will pmetit Planning Departmnt intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall dims the location of the construction Devising. The fencing shall be maintained in-plxe throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is complcted. All construction empioyces shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scnib habitat beyond tlx: construction fmcine. Page i , MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those boors allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section1028040 approval grading permit Mi. AESTHETICS Light and Glare Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mint Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Departmentg7.lare. glare. AApprovalpp grading permit and the Planning Department MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Pnor to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading pemrit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. r.XUSEKJ\YLNI HAKCU\l YLANI.;UM%FhNUIiNUIPAKKNI'1XM IMSK'I AB Page 2 r-: e_t PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage Improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., 'Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach, The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road, APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental Impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92668. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949)644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange x Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 1- Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. - tAcopyoftheInitialStudycontainingtheanalysissupportingthisfindingis0 attached 11 on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held. you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644.3200. Date Javier S. G rein Senior Plat ner F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDINWARKNFf1NEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges, Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/• will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 m ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems Cif Water Air Quality Transportation/ Circulation Cif Biological Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards 0 Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Z Aesthetics R1 Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DFTtRNUNATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and Z) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. aez: X Signat Ire Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Printed Name Date PIUSERSIPIMSHAILED\I PLANCGMIPENDINGU'ARKNPnCKLrST CHECKLIST Page 4 R1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or'minority community)? 1,2,3) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 10 o 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Selene, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) potentially Potentially Leas than No signlllbant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 C1 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, Insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e,g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources In a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q Q Q Q Q Q Q CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Other governmental services? (1,2) p Q Xil. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) Q Q b) Communications systems? (1,2) p C) Local or regional water treatment or J1 distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) Q e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) p f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) Q g) Local or regional water supplies? p 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic M highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative Q Q aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) Q d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) Q XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 121 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? J[j 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Q CHECKLIST Page 10 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Lesa than No Significant Significant significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site•specific conditions for the project. F.WSERMPLNISHARED\I PLANCOMWENDMPARKISIMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5, Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land U%e and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site a% MPR-Multi-family Residential land use, The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonfne - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex wits approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Site% In Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with it vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (367-1005r) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must he done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs'. The proposed gmding/crosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Progrma/land Use Plan . Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas, The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Putthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, it Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Populatinn/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create newjobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add newjobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and lone term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs? A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. l Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Mitigation Measure Nn. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hvdrolocv The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvemenN for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will -be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not he significant. The pniject also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements, The project will provide approximately 1,800 squire feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry stern water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites I and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the now 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Afeavure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer, S. Air Otiality Consl ruct ion/One rad nna l Impact, The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiting new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological' survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. S Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise ' Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shatcrete, construction of storm drains and backtilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area, The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate sonic construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinunce Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a,m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not he any long-term noise impacts with the project, Mitigntimt rb awre No. 0 All consruction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services, 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence orarange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers, The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Liehland Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concreteapron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing .' access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory tindinw; of Sicnificance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effect~ on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES r^ SAN ERRDINO COUNTY COUNTY ' `` Garden Grove ORANGE TCu sd d a i LL reeway 9Od TUSTIN • SANTA ANA eya F' 0e IRVINE COSTAMESA Goytia Freeway A NEWPORTBEACH c BEACH PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE LAKE MISSION VIEJO LAGUNANIGUEL O SANJUANCAPISTRANO Q DANAPOINT SAN • 2 CLEMENTE\` RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CU LBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 I n: NORTH Scale: 1" = 400' its .if.. . Y' 1-. xy. •. ,. •fit/ y _ l Stabilization Sites 4 : a S;•. . x L 410 Y V p 0 Newport- Bay N,y J . y • - t , r F , dry i i i '"r .Z A4 f fr ew t'd .rid r., 3'' r J, Ali i Lo kin ite 1 JA:6 1 1 ....ALZ i',[Ai x .y VIVA" Oro Iry j Jt V,v lit %4 fto e I L6oki rtg south u,-«..t. .. ...._ ......... r... ... Jam_._,.__.. - - --_ _ l-- BACK BAY DRIVE fYt.Y1R - r.................... ,. lff tYMta OPfP YYMOTO VPl Y.Y1M69a JfN OIT if YIF IRR`YPMiM11IY OP.1[..Yi}p{VA16T R MrIftIN IR R.At Pfftt r LL-J i -I 4 _ SFGB t i 11 l (e.elS 4RmanSsairtl 1 O .M{if Y111S EXHIBIT 6 .. BAC Y DRIVE _ '•-w., r _ l 11 to "` r'."` ` — CONSTRUCTION NOTES f O Pi L aA6t/v< ODKo LaSIKP.a['n T rmp. a O MOnORya Rl •a RPa.<M ROrtiwfYM [Q O] w «D a1P1 P.p I[. RIMp9Rfa u0 nµ . u'.na o oar •rort<roi rw uru p am <.w.u. Qi can .u. Pn.ru cnxo am rwaum mn/pu<p Mn: n'.wwn..a 0'uoiin "vwwv'"`iira Pn s.<.p. srw a LEGS Q rzxu m.aP.ae P.n 0/ ..rzrzn.n.n cy r - D/VL EXHIBIT 7 Sd19R. m(o-rwoPmrM •(amb rwr aw.w{a OM MOb6 T![ •IMT.PS4 L.•T 'V O> iw[ OldM lrrPfH(1 MNY I O{P4<I rp{(irlV lYlTf6.>MnM ilq! Of{{y[yi M(YpYM!>!>TYR qq Milq gfYPM.I ]V Q»•{:Rm-'.•Ofrv'rll.l"I•aP`.a-•Io.ma.ra Pl.sw r! STOMY DIINN Otl 0{(rY GS•h>{. M.NYIfIWY aYV Oq gr[O VIM(IOMOOI.{PI'I(MNY]Nw V' rr P.Jq.ml o ba.-.. •rcr (+xv{ +{ a J.. Nou ass:rPu>swrmrsm{•(i`s awq ma'ml' ns>+n'ael:m a>u Ir o R vu.•rw .. a bn«raq.v wro qa. a...a..b K.a.. aanw'I$`'i"i{iYo:uwei{sN •i..b s orola PYIA> l trEnc rrc t lic'f t>Frwt M CY.L LMKR'.NI<V bRP JW w1014` 0 t u r'OL•mu.s ( ijl S h V IVmPr N110•la .y Y fYilq[YMT f i wlsKwi. u W {IY S W 1 N {.3O/P.ir P eln 1 OECIAXA-A 1 NPII b• •xl>11 1 t Is(j•rnb! t INbw.?s( jF r Y OM an#{L .IWq (PI4 An NWf N![Nat Ar CONCi1ETE SLOPE IrINK) OtTAII 4Ytr LEGEND CL3 LR_= lw.q r W.f I{ ov{ b bOYOf,R R( Mb>b{ v ri9'WOf [#A.9k'i bq.{r u I w sb.wn{a+w rn ow wr Y lCIIOX/i ben O a Y(.v.bb W9.IrM 0 MR IN)tr b Ki R14V( FXHIBIT.S MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION ParkNewport Grading Project Park NewportApartnients October 19,1998 Implementation Method of Turing of ResponsiblePetson Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEIIS(Earth) I An annual inspection of the completed faahues shrill be Condition of Plan Check =J Program wrinonng Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The faedlities shall be inspected Arpnasal routine mmnuering by e+tablkhedpnorro tfiu fkpanmem during April or May of sash year. Thor results of the inspection stall be properly olrmr issuamcu of grading submitted to the City or Newport Beach Public Works Director for permit abet before June 1. Should it be determined that the stole is continuing to stuff, based upon the =nits of the annual inspectumc, further remedial gmdinglronstru:tion work shall to required a; determined by the Public Works Dirxtor. All mnedial work required by the City shall be eompkted by Notamber I of that year. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Pro(Twn munitonng Public Works the property miner ai determined by itv Coy of Newport Beach Public Approi.d nninne trwmtnnig by tabfibel prior to the: Dep.utrixatt Works DepartmenL property owner issuance of gmdrng Perini[ 3. The project will comply with the erosion and silation Condition of Plan Check Pnertothemwanccof Public Works control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable lw-d appm%ul grading permit Deparmxmt and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBhIC Section I5.04J40 or applicable sections). IV. HATER 4. That the pmjmt shall conform to the National Pollution Conditioner Plan Check Pnortotheissu.ausof Pubbe Works Dacharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval grading permit Depanniant subject to the approval of the Public Works Depanrnent and the Building Deparvinent or City authorized Grading Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S. Orange construction fericing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Poor to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approeul grading permit Department and the prior to the star of construction. The constitution fericing will prewrt Planning Deryxutrnett intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habn.o +hill direct the location of the construction fencing. The fericing shall to maintained in place throughout construction period and rciw%W only after all construction is erompleted. All construction employes shall be instructed not to enter into the canal sage scrub habitat beyond the Construction fericing. Page 1 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date K NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordmanee Sectionl0 28 040 approval grading permit Mi. AESTHETICS Light and Ohre7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mmimiu; Condition of Plan Cheek Prior to the issuance of Budding Department glare. gl Approval grading permit and the Planning Department MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeclogicallpaleomological resource surveillance, and shall establish, of cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicaVpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long -tern halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds arc of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. i•.\USCKb%rLNt MAKLU\iYLANLUM\YCNUIN(i\YAKKNPIIM'I MSKTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stabi ity repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach, The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts In the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November.22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Tel. No.: 916/445-0613) Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope alone the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Highway Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER Cl NOP Supplement/Subsequent NOT Joint Document Early Cons Cl EIR (Prior SCE No.) EA Cl Final Document 0 Neg Dec Draft EIS Other Cl Dmft/EIR Other FONSI Local Action Type General Plan Update Cl Specific Plan Cl Rezone Annexation General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Dev. Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit Community Plan Cl Site Plan Land Division (Sub -division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) 0 Other Gmdino Permit for slope stability and repair Development Type Cl Residential: Units Acres Water Facilities: Type MGD Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Transportation: Type CommerciahSq ft. Acres Employees_ Mining, Mineral Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Poaee Type Watts Educational: Cl Waste Treatment. Type- 0 Recreational Hazardous Waste: Type- 0 Other surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document AestheticNisual Flood PlainfFlooding SchoolsfUniversittes 0 Water Quality Agricultural Land Forest Land/Fire hazard Septic Systems Cl Water Supply/Groundwater Air Quality 0 Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Ripanan 0 Archeologic/Histonc Minerals wildlife 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Coastal Zone 0 Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing Drainage/Absoption Population/Housing/Balance Toxic/Hazardous Land Use Economic/Jobs Public Service/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Cl Cumulative Effects Fiscal Recreation/Parks 0 vegetation Other F:IUSERStPLN1 FORMS W EG-DEC103 NOCOPR.DOC. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949) 644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 F7County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project. Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apaatments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant. and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date Javier S. rcia Senior PIG ner F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPi NEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems 0 Water Air Quality Transportation/ Circulation 0 Biological Resources Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral El Aesthetics Resources n r_T.,.,.,A, 0 ('nlnim] RP.gmrCP.S DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Rl I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. at-A-n X Signa re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 0 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) I) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 CQ 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 n d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland. habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) VIII. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) C) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) C) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a 0 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred 0 uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for Q neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational 0 opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated R1 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F.\USERSFL\'\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan E1R, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan.Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B. Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitieation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial gradinglconstruction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitieation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. ZHetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites I and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. d That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. S. Air Quality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29. 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction. the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. CI 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:OO a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach. or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources. shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Garden Grove Riverside p Ere ORANGE aCu sa4 a d U. Freeway 9oa TUSTIN • SANTA ANA a 'PiPi Ayy P` IRVINE COSTAMESA Ooy y FfePW4Y q NEWPORT BEACH BEACH PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKE MISSIONVIEJO LAGUNANIGUEL O SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO GANA POINT SAN • 2 CLEMENTE\` RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY CRegional Location Map CULBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 NORTH": Scale: V = 400, t 1. 1 40 r ,ir i WeUpptz. Newport Bay 4 Y fir` ` i ' ~ ,• / . ,t( t' f H i.%. r.! ":1. • a / 1 . a i.Y. _. _i - u 2 iCA.+.i i ' . pit ! , ys . i if' vd ' i `'t ,5-ie y i y,. e s., ,t A lti w nt •,t. J yf" ... y t Lookir q r ore axSite 1 f.' 1%'iw 7'y't''i " t;' ,1'!S':+ ' 'j? !• (1 r.i`..`_it'...'. i`"Ia..:' rr 1 _ rs.a•• - IV 31 ram, ..'a+'• tillA r, 1 . i{i .; . -;:, '•'SFr. .`., F , ,' . a ' o{cii ar o h at f. a 1' .11 '1i sf.s $ ii t..F•F '•.. art- s a.. rtg south a a ram: Mn'4-'^" Mn.. .. ....n. J/.nrn/n.1 NJY ••-J / • — BACK BAY- DRIVE - 44lk 1 • O •'wt.ea.a. ,wowiron' wiiw+winirAw /<jr..l lrw 0' i'vn'ie.'r'r liwai rr n. n. wrr w..n,r o n.. Qi w,r wr,.a rrvlanM,n w..n lasru wrrwMr, t `WIIIW4 ew.a rrn - ry r Ids r j Of1( UN 1 _ 1. w•: I' —1t r7 r..salwwn EXHIBIT 6 BAY r---- DK DRIVE y r OIT PolR`•, Oi 6tM.W..P T9K Mt P,.Y M(^KTt jORPKRwuDOVrt.rN AOrawi:l'R Po rHa^ v °raaiw.P:n' cv o Ia aono.n. wq O WnP gmIP O Pr la anlPMliwOTM . OW w NPPt MS[a.rP 6la PfYf]wPnM Qi Par wrR..ru aww.e aPe nm wR•arrPxn• O NarlrM ra b.-4-4-/• fa i0 q 1)F1 Tn P NrPr 1/P I crcu^ POtR wR4.w Pm. V.T I /,I /r Ram mnPRMr P.n D rMRtrwRwl EXHIBIT 7 GRPDI G rn3 lone Qi arr so r'9w.m 101T.oun'"n.1:"o n.i` l u x0 M CT a r(VJrG R/P wflGnil Of rN OR_Pf; YRYIraFM IMOKM PP[ro IY Ol metro PwrOyrP lrPrO...aP NFi.P nw rrFs O m.iLI rlr3 q rmrrGYMPYtPMfi NORM RtOI 8mer.u.m.raw.rm.u.mrNrn...rwN.ri 93nM rro i w tR~ N.oi. i]m`t :N on s Mp. R.P MI STMM MMM roar. rr cv. ryi NsrN.m, Il.r r.w ry Q' vw... P.nr N..0 it Gs ••^ r cv.OUGmi+naw-wrruco awcro...e u...wnt roc amsis>m.v'a°"mnAOu.w ar.wn mnPm aa: or:.cu nw'eru ewwma iwui wo:r:iawa rw ri uuamn.a rl INTERCEPTOR IXTCI-I DEfAII Mr ro XMG p® n µlrtR 1 OCCfIGf1An 1 i X.I 1Mw.. n'OG w II- It rnon 1 IJio1 w.n an Fec...w rm anRuurormr ZTEMP'OFlARY CONCRETE IMNSLOPELO OETAL V o x.3 nee Fe..1 me aeL awM r a LEGEND spa. R) came uu qaw lYUVlr I..IYO YI.R q Y fol OI ItleG.w.Va GwG.m tnr. I.G loua.v oa. o• Doan armrn L aecoalw 6 aFveeo aiNu w MLET DETAL j a.ro3c.0 EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NE(:A'1'IVE DECI.ARA'1'ION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GE01AXNC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. Mt annual mmpectian of the comgdeleP facilities %hull Is Condmouol' Plan Check unit P"'gnun monitoring Public Works completed by a registered geologist. 'llie facilities shall IV impected Approval routine monitoring by established prior lit the Deparoucmt during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be property owner issuance of grading submitted to the City or Newport Beach Public Works Director for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, bated upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial gmding1comtmction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work r aired by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. 2. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the Cry of Newport Beach Public Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Department. property owner issuance of grading Penn[[ 3. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condition or Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local approval grading permit Department and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Cade (NBMC Section 15.0,1.140 or uppdienble sections). IV. WATER 4. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rxluiremcuts and shall be approval grading pennit Departramt subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City maborimil Grading Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coaxial sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area upproval grading permit Department and the prior to the star or construction. The construction fencing will prevent Planning Ihpartrnent intrusion by construction workers and equipmrc a into the coaxal sago scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall lout the location of the construction fencing The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the consiniction fencing Page I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE. DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19,1998 X. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Ihparttnent by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.0411 approval grading pennit XII. AESTHETICS light and Glum7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Ihpartrment glyls Approval grading pennit and the Planning Ikpannxm XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence. paleontologist shall be present at the pm -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeodogical/palcuntological m%ource surveillanee, and shall establish, in coolerllion with Ilia project developer. pnxcdums for temporarily balling or reduce ing work tit pennit saltrpling, rdentlfiealion, and evaluation of the` foYuls. 11 nWfnr archeological/paleontological resources am discovered, which require long -teen halting or ndine ing of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the pmjecl developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property pnservcd in Orange County, unless said finds am or special significance, or a nmscurrt in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the rink, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final rnnigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, ilia paleontologist shall submit a follow-up mpmt for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F.\USERSU)LNISHARHD\I PLANCOM\PENOINO\PARKNPI)MTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. 8—e6-1998 2:22PM FROM H1ETHERINGTON ENG: 760 9310545 P:2 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING - ENGINEERING GEOLOGY* HYDROGEOLOGY August 25, 1998 Project No. 3137-2 Log No. 02684 Gerson, Bakar R Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 Attention: Mr. Richard Ellis SUBJECT: GRADING PLAN REVIEW - TENIPORARY 1 ROSION REPAIR Portions of the West Facing Slope Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California References: Attached Dear Mr. Ellis: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the subject grading plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates. These plans are titled "Park Newport Apartments Temporary Erosion Repair Grading Plan" and are stamp dated August I9, 1998. The purpose of our review is to provide geotechnical comments with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. BACKGROUND The Park Newport Apartments were constructed in 1969, Geotechnical investigation and construction testing and observation was performed by LeRoy Crandall and Associates with initial geologic input by Glenn Brown and Associates. The subject slopes, on the west side of the project, were left in a natural condition and are up to 90 feet high at slope ratios typically between 1/2:1 and 1-1/2:1 (borizontal to vertical). These slopes expose a (10:k feet) veneer of terrace deposits over Monterey Formation bedrock. Numerous older landslides were identified on these slopes by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, and since construction in 1969 the slopes have been subjected to on going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate sized landslides which occurred in 1978,1993 and 1998. 5245 Avenida Encinas, Suite G - Carlsbad, CA 92008.4369 - (760) 931-1917 - Fax (760) 931.0545 109A9 Pcean 4rWnntn q, lira r` 0 Can Ji Inn r.Anictrsnn (.A 99R75-.1610 - 1949) 487.9060 9 Fax (949) 487-9116 8-26-1998 2:22PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG- 760 9310545 P.3 GRADING PLAN REVIEW - TEMPORARY EROSION REPAIR Project No. 3137.2 August 25, 1998 Page 2 Numerous studies and reports (see References) by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for permanent repair or mitigation of recent landslides and temporary repairs or mitigation measures to enhance the performance of these slope areas and to minimize impacts to the Park Newport Apartment improvements. Law/Crandall explicitly stated that maintenance oriented or temporary measures would only reduce the potential for landslides" and that the occurrence of landslides on the west facing slope is still likely. PROPOSED IMPROVFMENTS The plans reviewed cover two small areas at the top of the west facing natural slope. The area designated "Site A' is situated west of Building 3. The area designated "Site B" is situated south of the spa building and north of the apartment designated 4830. Site A improvements include limited grading to construct a paved interceptor ditch, splash wall and cut-off wall and concrete cover of an existing concrete filled sandbag slope, originally constructed in the late• 1970's. Site B improvements include limited grading to construct a paved interceptor ditch. The two paved interceptor ditches will be connected to the existing 15-inch storm drain situated southwest of the apartment designated 4830. 9E0TECHNICAL C-010 IENT_S The intent of the improvements is to enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface water to an existing stoma drain. These improvements will enhance the stability of the natural slope in these areas by reducing infiltration of water- It should be understood by Gerson, Bakar and Associates and the City of Newport Beach that these improvements are beneficial in this regard but do not render the natural slopes surfrcially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross or surficial slope instability. With the above in mind, the erosion repair plan is considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint. Regular inspection and maintenance of these improvements should be performed. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:23PM FROM HEETHERINGTON ENG. 760 931054S W1 GRADING PLAN REVIEW - TEMPORARY EROSION REPAIR Project No. 3137.2 August 25, 1998 Page 3 Please call if there are any questions. Sincerely, HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. TIUJJL OGSETH Registered Geologist 3772 Certified Engineering GeoloC.s expires 3/31/00) PAB;MDH/lg Distribution: 2-Addressee2-Robert Bein, William Fro1-Kevin Culbertson, Culbe Civil Engineer 30488 Geotechnical Engineer 397 expires 3/31/00) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:23PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG. 760 931OS4S P.S 1 1 Bibliography Park Newport Apartments Project No. 3137.2 1. "Report of Supplemental Geologic Investigation, Prepared Apartment .Development, Newport Beach, CA," by Glenn Brown and Associates, dated November 21. 1968. 2. "Reports of Soil and Foundation Investigation Phase 1 Proposed Headlands Apartments Promontory Point Area," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated December 26. 1968. 3. "Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Headlands Apartments, Newport Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated January 16. 1969. 4. "Report of Soil and Foundation Investigation Phase II Proposed Park Newport Apartments Promontory Point Area," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for Gerson Bakar and Associates, dated April 4, 1969. 5. "Supplementary Information, Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated August 21 1969. 6. "Requirements for Drilled Pile Foundations, Townhouses Adjacent to Buildings 4, 5 and 6, Proposed Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated Julv 8, 1970. 7. "Estimated Tip Elevations - Drilled Piles, Building No. 4, Park Newport, Jamboree / Road near San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport -Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall Associates, dated January 21, 1971. 8. "Report of Soil Investigation Proposed Extension of San Joaquin frills Road San Joaquin Hills Road to Back Bay Drive Newport Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Park Newport, Ltd., dated July 16, 1971, 9. "Preliminary Observations, Bluff Erosion and Sloughing, Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated March 10, 1978. 10. "Suggestions for Slope Repairs Existing Slope West of Buildings 32, 35, 36 and 37, 1 Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated July 19. 1978. 11. "Soil and Foundation Inspection, Building 41 (Apartment 3170) Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree and San Joaquin Bills Road, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated August 10, 1978. 12. "Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35 "( WParkNewportApartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated November 2,1978. 13. "Report of Slope Stability Study West Facing Slope Adjacent to Building 4 Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for Gerson-Bakar & Associates, dated June 28. 1979. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERINGs INC. 8-26-1998 2:24PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG. 760 931OS45 P.6 14. "Review of Foundation Underpinning, Design NWC Building 41 (Apartment 3170), _ Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated October 18. 1979. 15. Verification of Drilled File Inspection, and Inspection and Testing of Compacted Fill Proposed Underpinning of Building No. 41 Park Newport Apartments One Park Newport Drive," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for City of Newport Beach, dated July 3 1, L980. 16. Inspection of Site Conditions, Existing Park Newport Apartments, San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated December 3, 1984. 17. Summary of Observations Site Visit - March 22, 1988 Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated Kam 26, 1988. 18. Report of Geologic Evaluation of Slope Below Building 4 Newport Beach, California for Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Park Newport Apartments, dated April 30. 1991. 19. Consultation Regarding Existing Slope Failure on the Promontory Point area Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc, for Mr. Ken Adelson, dated Tune 22, 1993. 20. Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc. for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated August 29, 1994. 21. Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc. for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated September 1, 1994, 22. Geotechnical Consultation, Slope Distress Near Units 3160 and 3170, Park Newport Apartments, One Park Place, Newport Beach, CA," by Law/Crandall, dated December 15, 1994. 23. Addendum to Geotechnical Consultation Observation of Erosion Control Measures Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc., for Park Newport Apartments, dated February 16, 1995. 6, 24, Park Newport Monitoring Survey," by RBF, dated October 10, 1995, December 1995, 'February 12, 1996. 25. Park Newport Monitoring Survey," by Robert Bein, William Frost, & Associates, for Law Crandall, dated February 21, 199-6. 26. Park Newport Monitoring Survey," by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, for Law Crandall, dated April 8, 1996. 27, Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated May 14, 1996. 28. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Existing Landslide," by Law/Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated May 31, 1996. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:24PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG. 760 9310S4S P.7 29. 111995-1996 Annual Slope Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated June 24._1996. 30. "Memo-3160 Landslide Area," by Linda Gunther of Park Newport Apartments for Andy Dodge, Maintenance Supervisor, dated October 31, 1996. 31. "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for a Slope Wall" by Bagahi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated November 14, 1996. 32. "Email Summaries - Park Newport Slide Area," from Gerson, Bakar and Associates, dated June 29, 1995 through October 21, 1996. 33.='Geotechnical Consultation Observation of Asphaltic Distress Near Building 4," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated March 1$ 1997. 34. "Park Newport Monitoring Survey, Newport Beach," by Robert Ben, William Front Associates for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated April 2, 1997. 35.'"1996-97 Annual Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive" by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar and Associates, dated May 13, 1997, 36. "Landslide Mitigation Action - Park -Newport Apartments," by Bagabi' Engineering for California Civil Inc., dated July 25, 199 . 37. "Response to Coastal Commission - Park Newport Slope Repair," by Bagahi /- Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated August 4. 1997. 38. "Park Newport Apartments' Slope Rehab Project" by Gerson, Bakar & Associates for Eric Buress of P F & G, dated September 9. 1997, 39. "Retaining Wall Calculations - Park Newport Apartments," by Stample Engineering for Park Newport Apartments, dated Octobez 9. t 97. 40. "Special Inspection Report - Park Newport Retaining Wall," by Gary Rutherford for City of Newport Beach, dated October 14, 1997. 41. "Site Reconnaissance Slope Facing Backbay Drive," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated October 22, 1997. 42. "Progress Report - Park Newport Slope Wall;' by Bagahi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated October 23. 1997. 43. "Progress Report - Park Newport Slope Wall," by Bagahi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated December 5, 1997. 44. "Fine Grade Compaction Report - Park Newport Apartments Slope Wall," by Bagabi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar and Associates, dated December 8. 1997. 45. "Park Newport Apartment Drain Revegetation," by LSA Associates, Inc. for Park Newport Apartments, dated February 25, 1998. 46, "Final Slope Improvement Options Report," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar, and Associates, dated Agril 14, 1998. 47. "Report of Slope Stability Evaluation," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated Iv av 1. 1998. F. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:21PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG_ 760 931OS45 P. 1 DATE: TO: FAX NO. FROM: RE: COMMENTS: FAX TRANSMITTAL Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 5245 Avenida Encinas, Suite G Carlsbad, CA 92008 760) 931-1917 FAX (760) 931-0545 August 28,1998 Mr. Kevin Culbertson Culbertson, Adams, & Associates 949) 581-3599 Paul Bogseth Park Newport Apartments NO. OF PAGES SENT: 7 If there is any problem with the transmission of this information, please call Sherry at the number listed above. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Of PROPOSED BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS City of Newport Beach -""'- County of Orange, California Prepared for: Culbertson, Adams, & Associates 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 949) 581-2888 Prepared by: J. E. Heppert & Associates Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 3594 Mission Viejo, CA 92690-1594 949) 367-0754 D I June,1998 AUG 2 01998 - CALIFORNIA 1 EXHIBIT No. MISSION Application Number: COASTAL COM b•!E•345 Page 1 of 3 Califomis Coa: Commissior On June 29, 1998 Jan E. Heppert conducted a site inspection of the proposed bank stabilization project at Park Newport Apartments, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The weather was sunny with a light breeze blowing onshore. Temperatures were in the low to mid 70`s. Park Newport Apartments proposes to stabilize three different sites along the southwest edge of their property. These three sites are in close proximity to each other, and are located at the top edge of the cliffs above Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, just north of San Joaquin Hills Road. The Park Newport Apartment site is approximately 100 feet above Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, -with a•nearly vertical cliff separating them: •- - - The first site is on the southern most portion of the property, near housing units 4550 and 4540. Itisthe leading edge of a cliff that is a sheer 90 degree or more drop. The top of the cliff is vegetated with ornamental vegetation typical of the manufactured landscaping throughout the apartment complex. This extends down the cliff until a sheer rock face begins. Coastal sage scrub vegetation begins below this rock face, and extends down to San Joaquin Hills Road and Back Bay Drive. The bank stabilization proposed for this site includes extending a preexisting timber pole retaining wall from its present location approximately 40 feet around the corner of the cliff. If this work is done from the top of the cliff, it will not impact any native California vegetation, including coastal sage scrub found downslope. The second site is located to the north of the first site along the cliff that rises above the ecological reserve, below units 4830, 4840, and 4870. There are two areas of exposed soil below these units that appeared to have been cleared recently. Between these two cleared areas is a small section of vegetation that has been left. This cleared area extends approximately 20 to 25 feet downslope from the apartment elevation. Below this cleared area Is dense coastal sage scrub that extends downslope to Back Bay Drive. The cleared area appears to have been vegetated by ornamental vegetation based upon the vegetation found on either side of this cleared area and the small patch of vegetation left between the two cleared areas. This small area left untouched consists of pampas grass, palm trees, sugar bush and small ornamental bushes and ground cover typical of the manufactured landscaping found throughout the apartment complex. The bank stabilization proposed for this location Includes the installation of approximately 5000 square feet of gunite or•shotcrete. if this gunite or shotcrete is installed in the presently cleared area or the area of vegetation left between the two cleared areas, there will be no impact to any native California vegetation. If the proposed work extends downslope any further than the 2 . COASTAL COM( .S EXHIBIT PAGE .. P-... OF . ` cleared area, it will impact coastal sage scrub, and a permit from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will be necessary. In order to avoid impacting this coastal sage scrub, it is recommended that all work be done from the top of the cliffs. The third area of proposed impact is located just north along the cliff, below the clubhouse, pool and spa. Currently there is a flat area a few feet below the complex that is vegetated with sugar bush. This flat area is 3 to 7 feet wide. A portion of this flat area has slid down the slope, along with the sugar bush. This exposed slide area is covered with plastic and secured with sand bags to prevent further erosion. Immediately below this flat area is a steep slope that Is heavily vegetated with coastal sage scrub. The proposed bank stabilization includes the installation of a 157 foot long caisson wall. The construction of this wall is described *as follows: 23 concrete caissons, 36 inches in diameter will be installed along the cliff. They will extend 23 feet into the soil, and be on typical 7 foot centers. If this work is done from the top of the cliff, it should not impact the coastal sage scrub. If any coastal sage scrub is disturbed or removed during the construction process, then a permit will be necessary from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There is no riparian associated vegetation or any wetland habitat on this site or any other proposed construction site previously discussed in this report. In order to avoid the time consuming and possibly costly permitting process through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the removal of coastal sage scrub, it is recommended that no coastal sage scrub be disturbed during this bank stabilization project. If care is taken by the contractor performing the work, and the work is done in an environmentally aware manner, it should be possible to avoid Impacting the coastal sage scrub located adjacent to the work sites. 3 MNX COMM' t iBIT *--•-•- r ', GE ...3... OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: fz CULBERTSON, ADAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Jay Garcia, City of Newport Beach Kevin Culbertson November 20, 1998 Park Newport Apartments - Grading Permit - Amendment to Approval in Concept No. 1842-98 Transmitted herewith for your review and approval is the application materials for the Amendment to the Approval in Concept (AIC) No. 1842-98 for the slope stabilization project for the Park Newport Apartments. Per our previous conversation, this amendment will serve to add the grading and erosion repair work for the interceptor ditch/retaining wall (Sites 2 & 3) to the previously issued Approval in Concept. We respectfully request your approval of the AICconcurrent with the Negative Declaration's review period ending on Monday, November 23. If at all possible, we would like to secure your approval by Monday so that we may include the AIC with our application to the Coastal Commission which we plan to submit on Tuesday, November 24. We will be submitting the necessary application fee to you on Monday under separate cover. Please give me a call if you need anything further or if you have any questions at 581-2888. Thanks for your help! Enclosures cc: Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar Associates (memo only) 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, California 92656-4105 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 23, 1998 TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILING Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the $38 filing fee. Please stamp one copy "Posted/Filed" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Javi r S. Garci , AICP Senior Planner F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I FORMS W EO-DEC\02-COVR.MEM RECEIVED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED OCT 2 3 1998 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 O C T 23 1998949) 644-3200 GARY L GRANVILLE. Clerk -Reader GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 8y DEP(ny NEGATIVE DECLARATION By DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) FXxCounty Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apaatments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Ir 1ter attached on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. If noov ' 0 1 Date Javier S. Cl&cia Senior Planner F•\USERS\PLN\SHARED\l PLANCOMNENDING\PARKNPTNEGDEC 1. 2. 3. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: . Site l -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where It currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shoterete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the Inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-font long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed Improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading In order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the Interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shoterete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's Surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the cast: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKMT Page 2 0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Transportation/ Public Services Circulation Population & Housing Ef Biological Resources Utilities & Service 0 Geological Problems 0 Water Air Quality Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards 0 Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. d Signal Ire Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Printed Name Date /O/Z?i/N F.\USERS\PLNISHARED\I PLANCONI\PENDINMPARKNPTCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 Ef I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1,2,3) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Q 0 0 C I 10 CAI 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erasion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge Into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less then No', Significant Significant Significant Impact impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated v 0 21 Cd a Q R1 0 0 0 CHECKLIbr Page 6 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Change in the quantity of ground 0 waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to 0 pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design 0 features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or 0 access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity pn-site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less then No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) Xil. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact 9 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El Lessthan No . Significant Impact Impact d 0 0 121 RI 0 0 o 0 Ell G 0 ClIECUNT Page 10 a Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a Q physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred Q uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional pal•ks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational Q opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential Q to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential Q to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that Q are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIi. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Lesa than No'. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CSQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(0). In this case a discussion should Identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. E.\USERS\I'LN\SHARBU\I PLANCONI\PENbtNG\PARKNPTICKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Piannine A. Existing Land Use. The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonine - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code its adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The propo<ed slope stabilization project must be analyzed -under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "hiuft"its defined in Section 20.35.060(A). Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as any lundform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50r/) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question Is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%400%5) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erasion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs'. The proposed gradingterosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of ilia bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of ilia PC District zoning code, Local Coastal Progm: ft.and Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. PauulationlHousindEmnloyment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach, Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and' Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitigation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Miri atinn Measure Nn. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of it grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hvdroloev The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall failing on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate Into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at die bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carrystorm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites i and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the hay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation ofBMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. S. Air Ouality Cnnctruct i on/Operational lmrlact s The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be same exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact arcs residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Ciretdatien/Parkine The proposed project will nut have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the twb sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. S Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shoteretc, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28,040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long _Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore. there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. 69itieutinn Mrnsnra No. 0 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by tite City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. It. Public Services The proposed project will not have a treed for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not haw a need fir public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apurttnents closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only he directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that ire adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most or the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Buy Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long term aesthetic impacts. Although some'of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Lieht and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for tdmporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require lon, term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the Final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandaton, Findincs of Sienificance 1. an the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROJECT SITE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location CULBERTSON. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 o.0 NORTH •. `ti Scale: 1" = 400'i • S!'/ t I .','(' . r r.'- A • II ' . J Y Y. J. .M• .• Zj 3 j Y 4 iIH J 'fir yd1S•. •, Cw•` Stabilization Sites d'• Qrl. ` 07 N Newport ? , %> ...:• BayJs 14, r Tom.) •:+' f vw— iv. -... a ,:a w+y rLr1:.• _ J _. . , : 4::...r'1i +. Stu FW hiwy ry A 1 i art- ell o. I 'A in- T'^.-.. .. - .-.ate. _ ___ __—___—___.. i'rw.-r'"^•.._w." BACK BAY DRIVE n__ ....... .... - a Wr r '± L. , •, '-`'' _-" _ _ t4fLEGEND w•ww y xai Y1M.•xr = wb 1 4Y[«iMut.YRIF.a.xO Fes«. MriwM i•, 1 , I Oi xq[.n..R iNR MR xR«b FaMA Mkt>wbFIM Mri PANG NEWPOW APAH(1BfT8 cni OF rEWPoRr eEAc i EXHIBIT-6 BACKBAY D CONSTRUCTION NOTES ' ' aow.rnwmwexenou+v. iw.a, w. f -. mw< wror ea'm"'vdK n`a+ ar"`.e'.1vc"Ocm,.n rK aenow.o-o.a a mW,snc +mmm o-m,w a,uuaara wv,.. ` LEGENQ wex wrs ww.oaoirr 1A0rtcmr.a aru w xn, no.uv ''°'^ n .nw w o-rw ..n wnr..<. nrz.n.an..n em nwn nmwa•araaxa: ,,, , nssoa m.,nxew ..n ' miwnm.. .-nOgwirv`iv..wu -i n'an a,rrar as r nertn.n..a P E iD%ON REPAIR PLAN v' U CfTY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY SUMMARY OC Yp4 4m/K {4e\gi.WRap wi ZV mm.Yf arm n..cP.s pw.w.-wcNAa wica ensY"tw\faia qrr--miwnNm+NrenoPm u O] P6P P.gP•pa.gqi[Vas..ttt.. N— Ip{f O,P fq..MR -Om0\q A„a PaQ\ilMaY. pp> O4R .N\iw[Yq KMM f. 1,MN\i MIgRV NaUYI V I\M..IM-.fMOM AtigOM1I.t.Vt.Rw a.f ST'" MR OPec \Yeu NP wNm)nv. P... tp V AMt.Pb ItA{i N[...V41"•s V rY6w,Np1.d. WM11.yVytO ivKyI MfAYPat OnP Mf 1.$sl/w PO MPMA RPA C — T... Y.1•pRp NYNYN.ONMm P OPR i1 rrr>YOR DffCH OFFAL W\ p iCV[ rp.v.v s,>N.s.mss RrPO/ Ir 1 5 YN YM60.M r` f a JY[T 1Vaal.pl f a ta..aana e[....Y wNa A,npm p„q. 1 fEMPOFiARY CONCFIEM MLQM UNING OFFAL fi u.>e. WniMt..t 0 ft LEGEND iRS3. I tw...y, PSWcfs,Pr rmm iYfaC Ww.f Y](a W+Y G 1N..>.Y R vYt a/Yt W w> ew w>.a"Pa..xwrY Py{a{u P YT4t L1] WPn 1 F-- a +- a. •1 lCIIRIH L -> 6tli ®„PRMRIYI- 1 N_Ei OETAL Nf AX4 FXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport GradingProject Park Newport Apartments October 19,1998 Implerrrentation Method of Timing of ResponsihkPersoo Verification MMGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shalt be Condition of Plan Cheek and Prugram momtunng Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The Wlitics shalt be rmpvctvd Appmval mutina• m nitanng by estabhetied prior to the Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspaKmn shall be pmpeny nwrox i—= v of grading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Directur for permit review before June 1. Should it be daemuned that tax slope is ciemring to sluff. billed upon the results of the annual impecuons. further remedial gradinglconstmction work sh.d) ba required as determined by the Public Works Dim -toe All remedial work required by the City shalt be completed by November t of that year. I The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program momo*ring Public Works the property aura as dcietmined by the City of Nmiport Beach Public Approval routine momtonng by cstabh-het prior to the Apartment Works Department proNny owner as;uanx of grading pemua 3. The project will comply uith the erosion and pivaron Condrticnof Phan Check Pnorto tax issuance of Public R'ed;s control meosuns ofthe Cuy's grading ordinance and all applicable loc-al arpmval gmdmg permit Department and State building codes and scistmc design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 1504.t4U or applicublesecfions). IV. 1VATER 4. That the project shalt conform to the National Pollution Conditionof Plan Check Prior to the issuanccuf Publie Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requitcrocrits and shall be arpm%al gradmgpernin Department subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Apartment orCity authorized Grading Engineer. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fearing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Priurtodicissuanrcof Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approval grading permit Department and the prior to the start of camtmction The construction leaving will proem Planning Deparnnt intrusion by construction workers nail equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub, habitat stall dirt the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and ro mmvei only after all construction is completed. All comY[uctien employees shall tx instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the conctructionfencine. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6 Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section10.28040 approval grading permit XII. AESTHETICS Light and Glare Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mmun'rce Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of BuildingDe artmem g7.lglare Approvalpp grading pemm tpandthePlanning Department MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading perut and Budding Dept that a qualified paleontologist has bun retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeologicallpalcontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils If major archeologicallpaleontological resources am discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may return said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds am of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F\USERS\PLMSHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTVNTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Baker & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts In the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644.3200. Written comments environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FILING Enclosed are two copies of a Notice of Determination for filing as Code Section 21152. Please stamp one co "Posted/Filed" and the undersigned at the address shown on the NOD. Compli Section 21089(b) and Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is provi d Enclosed is a check in the amount of $888 ($850 as County Clerk filing fee). J by Public Resources with Public Resources Code as follows: for an EIR project + $38 Q Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1288 ($1250 as required for a Negative Declaration project + $38 County Clerk filing fee). Enclosed are two copies of a Certificate of Fee Exemption as provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and CCR Title 14, Section 753.5, and a check in the amount of $38 County Clerk filing fee). The approval associated with the enclosed NOD is one of a series of actions that are part of the same project. The required DFG fee was paid at the time the Notice of Determination was filed for the first such action on this project. As provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(g), no additional DFG fee is therefore required. Enclosed is the $38 County Clerk filing fee. 9 The City is a Responsible Agency for this project. Code Section 711.4 will be satisfied by is the $38 County filing fee. The fee requirements of Fish and Game as the Lead Agency. Enclosed If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 644-3200. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\I FORMSW EG-DEC\04-CO VR.MEM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 BUILDING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3288 FEE RECEIPT Date Z PlanCheck No. Received By: T GW tG 1J . , 3e•i _. e ae.l t Q(AV (L P po a ' Received From Job Address Building Plan Check......................................................................2900-5002 $ Zoning Plan Check (Architectural)...............................................2700-5003 $ Zoning Plan Check (Grading).......................................................2700.5003 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds...................................................... 2auu-5uu4 FirePlan Check.............................................................................2330-5055 $ Electric Plan Check....................................................................... zauu-4U1L a Plumbing Plan Check....................................................................29A0-4616 $ Mechanical Plan Check.................................................................2960.4618 $ Overtime Plan Check - Building...................................................2900-5023 Overtime Plan Check - Grading....................................................2900.5004 Overtime Plan Check - Planning..................................................2700.5003 Preliminary Code Compliance Review..........................................2900.5902 Reinspection B E H P/Special Inspection.....................................2900.5008 Reinspection Fire...............................................................2030.5050 Temporary Electric .............................. 0% .... 7 rg 2900- 4612 Temporary Gas ...................................... ..QF..N2900-4616 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ................................ Underground Utilities Waiver......................................................010.2225 Grease Interceptor ................. ...................... nv1ra 2900- 4620 Planning Department Fees . ....2700-5000 Sale of Maps & Publications.........................................................2700-5812 Determination of Unreasonable Hardship...................................2900-5018 Microfilm Copies/Photocopies........................................................010-2263 Other( Specify).......................................................................:....... TOTAL FEES Fee Receipt No. a5 NOTICE: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMITTAL fVeercpt. 198) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Y , ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 714) 644-3200 A. General Information Date: September 25, 1998 1. Applicant/Agent: Kevin Culbertson Phone: (949) 581-2888 Address: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 2. Property Owner: Gerson Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 391-1313 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 B. Proiect Description 1. Project Name: Slope Stability Repair Work (Grading Permit) 2. Project Location: Park Newport Apartment Complex (1 Park Newport) 3. Assessors Parcel #: 440-132-52; 440-251-07; 440-251-08 4. Permit Application: GP ***-98 5.a. Proposed Use: N/A 5.b. Project Size: N/A 5.c. Site Size: Site 1: 1,000 square feet 5.d. Building Height: N/A Site 2: 2,200 square feet Q 7. L1 a Existing Land Use Designation: General Plan: MFR - Multi -family Residential Zoning: P-C Specific Plan: N/A LCP: East Bay Area: (11) Park Newport Previous Governmental Approvals: CDP 5-97-250 Other Governmental Approvals Required: Federal: N/A State: California Coastal Commission Regional: N/A Local: Grading Permit Begin Construction: November/1998 Estimated Occupancy: N/A 1 C. Potential Environmental Effects Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two specific locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph showing the location of the project in relation to Back Bay Drive/Upper Newport Bay. Also shown on Exhibit 3 are the locations of the two proposed stabilization sites. The proposed project consists of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Exhibits 4 and 5 present photographs of the existing slope. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e. Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: ELL! - Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12 corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" stormdrain line. Also, a 32-Foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be. constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details.of the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200, square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. Analysis: 1. Land Use and Plannine A. Existing Land Use: 11 LOS ANGELES r^ SAN COUNTY BERNARDINO COUNTY aL I Nm rI Riverside p Ftee ay ; f 000, ' `` ORANGE sa • a si ` RIVERSIDE a v rj ` COUNTY Garden Grove Freeway .mow saTU:TIN . sa' SANTA ANA mj 3 °q I dq • y COSTA IRVINE ` a Free °Olhlll ORANGE dsr MESA G09 K'dy FORESTLAKE COUNTY / Frwy • o N T • \ MISSION°a9`' U 01 Sal VIEJO toEACHC/ J` Mlls A • 1 C01 O LAGUNABEACH LAGUNA T at i NIGUEL % a Orte9a a i O SAN JUAN S PROJECT SITE CAPISTRANO , J DANA I SAN DIEGO POINT • COUNTY Z SAN CLEMENTE\ MAP NOT TO SCALE Regional Location Map CULBERTSON, ADAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 ry b' e'a,.y' Yu•S=a.: 'e;.: J T " .F9.'' .'•' ` i . ..a F iiSIrst'_L.;#,.." a '•-tipi P'yT°'3"a'zzFia' V ` . J,•"VS'` r 'k; . Ir, f o ' air. . Hn x.. `y'=1 I. .°isr lr 5 4,;• `T Cd• a . As' PH 4Vn. y' . 9 e•M^ • M'F! ,,5, ii a li 4M 4 v A is 4,,.kvi•. . e'nc..;F nr fi4::z .n ,:t' . •., tr'. ,dry/ J ' - ,^'i .. i 1. «`.c d t 'F' h J•'•".y,:v' e..:.,.' r• ,•^s,.qr< ' • S:Li: 1, f, a• 4`jJ n ht 4. T a n AM 1 f'Yr~ 7' ."1%6n.1• "_ sklpp 1°s tr:Pr '`Y Ssa. J,r^ "L ..I.i:r..v, 'i'. ,. •,V\, r 3 d"<`^a f"-i '3,vygY., 'i'ax 2i!, r%•{; c,` , _l'+',L,.'R'ti' . '9". .,. i'i.i.;hv' •:;n +} i(crc i',' r r ` a ,ii, #,Y 5.', ' • tr y. ,- i{ . 5 , lc::{"',`{.+;. 5 - . ; a ` f °.JW i ^ .¢° Mr`'w>Rrw"'.. , j,.. . f'.; s"' , k t•'. ' rf'.4r°+ - ,I z' ,, Frr S0"r '- r t4.x-fir <_'. Jn •. .,` f•. - '.:. ^' iN 1v ry ` • f ys ea A`%'r, lT.:•F, 515 y,f 'f/ v. ... ram.}+1, r r,wq• • .4` r , fs,,. 1/.. r • 6 •,!"# f:: r' 41%' " µd •7 'F ' r •v ` 4ySSSYYY""" . , y i ri.: r zr4} • j`, df` i. -t - iP...n.(',-'• :dt +.' i:V/./,y:4:?l\Tfy l\: 1ay Y j. r)M1d' xi%Y{;Y. x'y. Ai'vr,. rf • ni sgyayv •;''F a ' T•....r :' i' r. .S',' m hf°i s. i *•° in.%l Srr ,bt''.' t .i`;.liTn a '' 1 .t n'• 77„' Ta'. I I J !. a € , tS rJ. ! N rd"•'Y.: Aerial Photo with Sites Indicated CULBERTSON, AAAM S &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 I V, SEP. wilk!r44t hh"O BACK BAY DRIVE ,_--- n -- w v l,surc s SZ v 07- d v WItYm •1 LEGEND J-+ v r / 1 tlx.' I[MIv010(YIW WR OI 1yAY01M vif /Cry iK r 1 ® fppl[I[9Y[ORMFIOI I R QYROw'LgO@ V lWIt9'[CIU[ Y WSf ISm 1 u'irs''auw a mw va uu,a norvx 1, t, Q, rwrtcr•rurc OCpff M[f MS V {OI CC TYO iR RW q IOf MY M p1K q 9611 _ R D PAfICGM REAPAFifM@fI8Y a.l •YIW, ll! rM 6i0610N RAH PLAN arl n A 1*x ""' H1E'B tliFOfq PLAN Asr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n vm EXHIBIT 6 r SACK 9,4r- == ol v'Awo CONSTRUCTION NOTES / Qma wn,w vrw awyo sm wxw mn wo iw mrawamv a rw w ma .Bpp1lvoeia'`r wvv"`o mm`-. sia my r r..u, s.w' v 'fir' ' v`..'A z 1 a wee.. x.a EXHIBIT 7 a.z..e2Rf Qi aw.mMoro lavc Az mro mrsnMrtnwOiO@"r. x o zzz oim.o vn wrurc'm'•nl eoalw. i iosmrn w OM.G`mz90RwAzo Lcl w.nxrtom.uom ru z W atlM iortw"mlw mwmmrwaar a.io.A. INOY Q Rao•zrartcewmmnwamzAa vn rmoY Qi mar. wxarmmmmMwa¢ri au zo.w.uvw:Me`rzo n.x l"`iu nrt1`e.a-.rm rnwlawnxw zma RM DRAIN meL mry ozucravwm>zrw eu. zMv r.a...Y.0 zrm lu II IrYGwVwlal a wFwr/JSFmImwM[.w aw. WVLL a s u w IWi1et AwC ®IOm1 A•a9GtmImmCEm llo al rvm m ewZICWn 4 i3 uIC w RL wzm.n. nII I ewllRw I[ml w- Li rzr-aez ao.a. I roo Nmaxzaoc Nexa.a oc t r el.. \\ N GW wrtwvc Nwrtmenlro \\ I p®ate aYe I 1M mrt.tYecm lll Av lm'Z'ZiIIN <I aH, re L tPGn[9WLW YMI®MOAY9wlrtWYwlxvYlmAmewm00Yiiwxnwuwmwexco:. L WOSR 9WL W)CA1NrY 4dArt 0A1®Jr SvpLlZ Ar tO L WlwOC 9WLY e•Y {'-aOZaOYO®ZwL1dl (lW1 WIpY IO Ytml w]IVMWOY AN @C L IXu49aYt Ki4-RmOWMYffiNmIVMMl1G w CIOW [rtw W flAOGr 6 wAT[R YViN[ 2 CMM9Wl6NPr<IIW WiK GffiICCNVM..W w R1MIMr 9M141®.YIRW®n M}ZbC O1A1rL VI9Yw Ml BC A.MYROMCnMYCOM4lOHSaRX/ OC INW4 0 w.1 A3 Ma W 1• DDMwWm 1 INTERCEPTOR DffCH DETAIL_ 4 TEMPORARY CONCRETE SLOPE LWNG DETAIL ar ro scut ar to YAs r LEGEND lal m:swr w.. a nvoYo slw ae.. pulvl A x conm...c.uz an W+r u< m w a,R awYoz 0 wY O 9VS w3 C eM.(4[xr osOY arnrt wL( vaM m.R rtl•d tl'4 rt F-0-1 1 T. Au mm G I nY0 l INLET DETAIL WI ra SCM[ EXHIBIT 8 The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sand bags that have been previously placed on the surface toprevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonin¢ -At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5,1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District), Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-1009o) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long term affects on local employment. 3. Earth 11 The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides which occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc, reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs? A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help -reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Miugatiot Measure No. 1 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. 77te facilities stall be inspected duringApril or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June L Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to fail, based upon the results of the auutal inspections, fitrtherremedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 77te constntcted facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. ZHetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 12 4. Hydroloev The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of IT corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. S. Air Ouality Construction /O perational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and not will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 13 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub which extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The project will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitat that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize.hnpacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. End and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch,, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate,some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Noise impacts will be further reduced by limiting the hours of construction. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. 14 to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m, on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure Now lP All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services and Utilities The proposed project will not have a need for public services or utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 12. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short- term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. 0 Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may 15 be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. .6 l Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 In the event that significant archaeological/paleontological remains/fossils are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project applicant shall donate all archaeological/paleontological material/fossils, historic or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist/paleontologist. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16 Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct to the best of knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject,of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. Ken Diessel, Director of Facilities Services Agent for Park Newport, LTD. q- - Ct, i Print name of owner or representative and Title (Sigilahire For Office Use Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: Rev. 7-24-97 17 CHECKLIST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS Negative Declaration package Notice of Completion form Negative Declaration form Initial Study checklist and analysis V Exhibits/attachments v Mitigation on monitoring program Public hearing notice (Hearing date: ) 38.00 County Clerk filing fee Concurrence from lead division if not Advance Planning Contact Person: Consultation with applicant regarding mitigation measures I bG 9i6eV3_,%>VPostingperiod: O UeNs14 qe 7 20 days (no state or regional issues) 30 days (state review required) Postinglocations: V County Clerk Project site City hall Newspaper State Clearinghouse (Notice of Completion + 10 copies) Direct mail to adjacent property owners and residents Distri tion: File Lead planner Applicant or City contact n I f— City departments 'd t\ l W hWJWtof1 Public agencies HOAs Private groups Individuals Notice of Determination (Date filed: State Clearinghouse County Clerk Department of Fish and Game fee status Exempt (Notice of Fee Exemption form + $38 filing fee) Not exempt ($1250 fee + $38 filing fee) Revised 1/21/981/21/984A&W F:\Planning\Users\Shared\lforms\neg-dec\ndchklst 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing 94 Geological Problems V/Water Air Quality Transportation/ Circulation Biological Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards a0ise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities & Service Syystems MOAesthetics or Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\1FORMSVEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 4 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3 ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?(1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a/ W 2 C90 000, CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,419,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less than Significant No Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Cam/ CHECKLIST Page 6 t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f i CHECKLIST Page 7 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e:g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) VIII. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated G/ 2010' C7 El E3 LY/ C Cal CHECKLIST Page 8 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 12) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 12) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 12) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated R e El El El Door lY D' 20 CHECKLIST Page 9 b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant Impact No Impact Mitigation Incorporated dam 2r goe ER0001 Be We M l 17 Si / CHECKLISTKA ! Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) K/ 1/ c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) p sY Cl l/ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred COY uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for 2001, neighborhood or regional parks or, other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational 00 opportunities? (1,2) XVi. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? CHECKLIST Page 11 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when Viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0 IN] 0 C 0 M M Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. , b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department 714) 644-3206 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surtical grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. CHECKLIST Page 1 The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: ite i - Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit G shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross - sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch,1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) C u r r e n t Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. Casctaas•r Page 2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population & Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/ Circulation Biological Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. ANEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name F:\USERS\PLN\SHARrDNIFORMS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 4 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3 ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?(1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking 1,2,4,9,10,11,12 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? 1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CHECKLIST Page 7 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1.2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VIi. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflictwith adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1,2) X. NOISE. Would the,proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) 11 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Police protection? (1,2) Cl c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? 1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,2) CHECKLIST Page 10 b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CHECKLIST Page 11 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 12 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook,1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Back Bay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Back Bay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review -Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\1FORMS\NCG•DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport Proiect Descrintion The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph showing the location of the project in relation to Back Bay Drive/Upper Newport Bay. Also shown on Exhibit 3 are the locations of the proposed stabilization sites. The proposed project consist of surfical grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Exhibits 4 and 5 present photographs of the existing slope. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: ite t - Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit G shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" CHECKLIST Page 14 corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. I. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual .area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sand bags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. CHECKLIST Page 15 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 CHECKLIST Page 18 Exhibit 4 CHECKLIST Page 19 Exhibit 5 CHFCKLIST Page 20 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 CHECKLIST Page 22 Exhibit 8 CHECKLIST Page 23 Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff" as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36 %-100 %) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading), grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add CHECKLIST Page 24 new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long term affects on local employment. The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandall (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Back Bay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides which occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.' Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long- term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs.' A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 CHECKLIST Page 25 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to slough, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. u I r The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. IV. Water The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from Site 2. The proposed improvements for Site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between Sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. CHECKLIST Page 26 The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. V. Air Quality The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and not will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. VI. Transportation/Circulatioit/Park nng The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 1/ 1 : _ I MUM i[L A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub which extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The project will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitat that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the CHECKLIST Page 27 construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. it _ 1/_.J_ : 1:• M Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. IX. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. CHECKLIST Page 28 1•-I rimWeISTITMANUITive•_ The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Noise impacts will be further reduced by limiting the hours of construction. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section I0.28.040. XI. Public Services and Utilities The proposed project will not have a need for public services or utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. XII. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the CHECKLIST Page 29 construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. XM. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. XIV. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. CHECKLIST Page 30 MWA In the event that significant archaeological/paleontological remains/fossils are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. The project applicant shall donate all archaeological/paleontological material/fossils, historic or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the .Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist/paleontologist. The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. That there are no known substaintial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. CHECKLIST Page 31 LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member j ROBERTBEINWILLAMFROST November 2, 1978 JUL 2 01998 RECEIVED 11 Gerson-Bakar 6 Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94407 .(Our.Job No. C-78019) Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall " Adjacent to Building 35 Park Newport Apartments One Park Newport Drive Newport Beach, California This letter summarizes the conclusions reached at a conference on October 24, 1978, regarding the installation of an erosion control retain- ing wall adjacent to the westerly side (or bluff side) of Building 35. The conference was attended by representatives of the City of Newport Beach, your organization and our fi>=m. The conditions requiring the retaining wall and the recommended design parameters for the wall were discussed in our report dated July 19, 1978 (our Job No. C-78019). The design of the wall, as well as the proposed regrading and drainage control of the area, is shown on plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, dated October 10, 1978• The plans and calculations are currently being reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. During the review process, City personnel have postulated more adverse geologic conditions than disclosed by the initial foundation in- vestigation. As a result, the City has questioned whether the wall should be designed to provide lateral support to the adjacent building and its underlying foundation soils. The City's question is prompted•by changes in personnel and different interpretation of the foundation conditions for the building since the City's approval in 1968. It was this new interpretation of the soil and geologic data that initiated the conference. - LAW Engineering and Environmental Services. Inc 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040.1554 213-889-5300 • Fax: 213-721.6700 r Gerson-Bakar 6 Associates November 2, 1978 Page 2 (Our Job No. C-78019) The top of the proposed wall will be slightly outside of the geo- logic setback line established in.1968, although the foundations will be within the set -back zone. It is realized that any structure beyond the set -back line could be subject to the effects of slumping and sloughing of L the downhill portion of the bluff and such a structure has to be considered as potentially expendable in the event of excessive sloughing of the bluff. The purpose of the proposed wall is to minimize erosion of the upper portion of the bluff adjacent to the building, to provide a means of controlling drainage and restricting moisture penetration into the subgrade soils adjacent to the face of the bluff, and to re-establish and stabilize the outer edges of the patio areas adjacent to the building. Building 35 was not affected by the sloughing and erosion of the bluff that occurred during the rains of 1978, and the proposed retaining wall is not designed to provide any support to the building. However, the wall will obviously improve the foundation conditions for the building by reducing the slough- ing of the upper portion of the bluff and thereby giving the building added protection. The owner is aware that the proposed wall extends beyond the re- commended set -back line for structures that has been previously established. It is realized that the wall may require replacement or repair if future sloughing were to extend as far as this set -back line. We strongly believe that such a possibility is unlikely; however, the City has asked that the owner acknowledge that the wall may require corrective work in the event of a massive failure of the bluff. The owner's representative agreed, at the October 24 conference, to stipulate that the retaining wall is within the portion of the bluff which could be lost and that the wall is not designed to provide support to the building or its foundation soils. The City's recent interpretation of the geologic data considers that the setback limits, or limits of potential bluff failure, could be further towards Building 35 than previously suggested. If this is true, a portion of the building could be affected by potential failure of the bluff. We strongly doubt that this condition exists, however, it was agreed that geologic observation of the borings drilled for the piles for the wall will provide information for evaluating the conditions. Based on the re- sults of these more complete observations, it will be possible to determine if there are adverse conditions which would affect Building 35• if adverse conditions are encountered, correction procedures can be performed within the building limits without affecting the proposed retaining wall. This to the City'sprocedurewasagreeable representative. 1 I Gerson-Bakar s Associates Page 3 November 2, 1978 Our Job No. C-78019) Since time is of the essence, as far as providing erosion pro- tection to the top of the bluff is concerned, we respectfully suggest that the City permit construction of the wall as soon as possible. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES C.E. 6157 President LC-JM/lb 6 copies submitted) cc: (4) Park Newport Maintenance Office Attn: Mr. Joe Bowman 1) Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer November 28, 1979 Gerson Bakar and Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94401 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: Bulkhead Wall Geologic Inspection Building 35 Park Newport Apartments Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, California Our Job No. C-78019) PURPOSE The purpose of this letter is to report on the geologic conditions as observed during the construction of the bulkhead wall adjacent to Building 35. This letter provides a summary of these conditions. A detailed description and accompanying photographs are available in our job file for future reference. BACKGROUND The approximately 150 feet of bluff adjacent to Building 35 has experienced erosion, sloughing and slipping. Our firm recommended the construction of a bulkhead wall to correct the situation. During con- struction of the bulkhead wall, two open fractures were uncovered in C-78019 Page 2 bedreck. The description of the fractures by our field inspector warranted an examination of these features by one of our geologists on August 28, 1979 with further examination occurring on August 30, 1979 and October 12, 1979. The examination on August 30, 1979 was assisted by the use of a small backhoe. FINDINGS Two parallel, steeply dipping fractures were observed, adjacent to the bulkhead wall: one fracture west of Pile No. 18 (southernmost pile) and the other on the 3/4:1 construction slope behind Pile No. 15. The fractures were either open or filled with soil and/or construction debris. The overall width cf the fractures varied from about 1/16 inch (cracks) up to 7 inches (open fracture). The fracture by Pile No. 18 was within 1 to 11 feet of the pile and extended in a north -northwesterly direction fcr about 25 to 30 feet, sub - parallel to the bulkhead wall. The depth of this fracture was at least six feet. About 3 inches of offset, down to the west, was observed on this fracture. The fracture behind Pile No. 15 formed a one -foot wide by two - foot high cavity on the construction slope. The fracture extended laterally for at least 31 feet into bedrock (shale) and trended north -northwesterly. Strata in bedrock did not appear to be offset by the fracture. These fractures are probably tensional, pull -apart features. However, the offset C-78019 Page 3 in the fracture west of Pile No. 18 may indicate that some slippage has also occurred. CORRECTIVE WORK Based on these findings, we recommended that the fractures be filled and sealed off with cement grout to prevent water from draining into the fractures. Our site representative observed the completion of this work. GAB-GG/kg 6 copies submitted) I Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES by Gary Guacci Staff Geologist by 1&ogiist 404. Glenn A. Brown, C.E.G. 3 Director of Geological Services II II October 18, 1979 Gerson Bakar b Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94407 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: Review of Foundation Underpinning Design NWC Building 41 (Apartment 3170) Park Newport Apartments Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, California Our Job No. C-78019) At the request of Mr. Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer, we have reviewed a proposed underpinning system to stabilize the northwest corner of the subject building. Soil is eroding from the building corner and ap- proximately 12 feet of the north and west wall foundations are partially or nearly exposed. We previously discussed this portion of the building in a report dated August 10, 1978; a copy of that report is attached. In that report, we outlined our observations relative to the soil conditions adja- cent to this corner of the building and suggested that the building foun- dations be extended into the underlying shale by a system of slot -cutting. Mr. Poteet has developed an alternate underpinning system consist- ing of a steel needle beam supported on drilled cast -in -place concrete piles. Mr. Poteet has provided us design drawings and calculations, dated September 17, 1979, showing the proposed system. We have reviewed the con- cept for underpinning as submitted by Mr. Poteet and are in agreement with the specified procedures. In the design of the underpinning piles, Mr. Poteet has used the soil criteria which we previously provided for other areas at the site. That information is applicable to this project. For vertical loads, the drilled piles supporting the underpinning may be designed using a friction value of 1,000 pounds per square foot of contact between the pile and the shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be neglected in computing the vertical capacity. I Gerson Bakar b Associates Page 2 October 18, 1979 The lateral resistance for drilled piles may be computed by using the Uniform Building Code formula. When considering the pole formula, the lateral resistance of the shale may be taken as equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 500 pounds per cubic foot; a one- third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The above recom- mended values are for piles penetrating the shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be nealected in computing the lateral resistance of the pile. Please contact us if there are any questions or if further infor- mation is desired. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES by James M. McWee, R. E. 11833 Project Engineer by — ,off w v LeRoy Cran all, .E. 6157 President LC-JM:mu Attachment 3 copies submitted) cc: (2) Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer 2) Park Newport Apartments Attn: Mr. Joe Bowman 3) City of Newport Beach Building Department Attn: Mr. James Evans, Geologist i i it I SUGGESTIONS FOR SLOPE REPAIRS EXISTING SLOPE WEST OF BUILDINGS 32, 35, 36 AND 37 PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS JAMBOREE ROAD AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA OUR JOB NO. C-78019) I r r L I J r r Gerson-Bakar s Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94407 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: July 19, 1978 Our Job No. C-78019) Suggestions for Slope Repairs Existing Slope West of Buildings 32, 35, 36 and 37 Park Newport Apartments Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, California SCOPE As requested by Mr. Douglas Pearson, we are pleased to submit this report providing our suggestions for restoring lateral support to approx- imately 400 feet of the upper portion of the westerly facing bluff adjacent to Buildings 32, 35, 36 and 37 at the subject apartment complex. The studies were performed under the direction of James McWee, Project Engineer, with the geological data prepared by Monte Ray, Project Geologist. The area involved in this study is shown on Plate 1, Site Plan. Prior to any construction on the property, we investigated the general foundation conditions of the site, and submitted the results in our' report dated December 26, 1968 (our Job No. A-68249). We subsequently r C-78019 - Page 2 performed inspection and testing services of the grading at the site, and submitted reports related to that work (our Job No. B-69165). On March 10, 1978, we submitted a preliminary letter providing our observations regarding the bluff erosion and sloughing which was occurring during the heavy storm season of the spring of 1978. As a result of the 1978 storm season, significant erosion, slough- ing, and slipping occurred in the upper ten to fifteen feet of the bluff that exists along the west side of the property. The bluff in this area is some 90 feet in height. Although the adjacent buildings were not affected, the retreating of the top of the bluff did encroach on a few patio areas, particularly adjacent to Building 35. Some landscaped areas of the property were affected, and sloughing approached within six feet of one corner of Building 37. This study has been limited to procedures for stabilizing the upper five to fifteen feet of the bluff within the zone adjacent to Buildings 32, 35, 36, and 37. in performing this work, our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. 0 C-78019 - Page 3 CAUSE OF SLOUGHING The soil conditions along the top of the bluff are variable, but generally consist of a 5- to 12-foot thick layer of relatively permeable silty sand, geologically classified as terrace material. This sandy soil overlies an almost impervious bedrock material, geologically classified as shale. There are occasional layers of permeable sandstone within the shale, but the bedrock is practically impervious to the percolation of water. The buried surface of the bedrock has a slight slope towards the northwest, so that water infiltrating the permeable soil travels laterally to the west on top of the shale and seeps out of the face of the bluff. Erosion and sloughing of the bluff is an inevitable process in the present exposed condition of the bluff. The terrace material erodes readily, but the bedrock erodes much slower due to its general resistance to weather- ing. In addition, the bedrock tends to maintain a fairly steep slope inclinations of 1/2:1 to 1:1 are typical). However, the sandy material at the top of the slope, not having the same degree of resistance to weather- ing as bedrock, tends to retreat more rapidly with the result that the slope of the top of the bluff is somewhat flatter. The abnormally heavy rainfall experienced this year, along with the accumulation of run-off from the yard and adjacent roof areas, significantly increased the amount of moisture introduced into the upper sandy soils. When the water percolated down to the impermeable shale (bedrock), it accu- mulated at the contact between the soil and the shale until it could flow C-78019 - Page 4 laterally along the slightly sloping shale surface to the face of the bluff. This lateral seepage weakened the sandy soils and lubricated the shale surface, thus permitting the sloughing of the otherwise stable sandy terrace materials. At the same time, the face of the bluff was exposed to significant rainfall, as well as surface run-off, which caused heavy local erosion of the sandy soils. Generally, the sloughing and sliding was limited to the upper sandy soils, but in a few areas the shale material was probably undercut and local portions of the shale surface also sloughed. However, the sloughing of the shale material was a significant distance downslope and has not caused any of the conditions experienced at the top of the bluff. INVESTIGATION The conditions along the portion of the bluff under consideration were first examined by our project geologist following the heavy rains. The various slumps, slides, and erosion areas that existed along the embank- ment were mapped. The results of this mapping are shown on Plate 1. Based on this geological reconnaissance, several cross -sections were drawn to show the estimated subsurface conditions at selected locations along the bluff. These sections were discussed with Mr. Pearson and with Mr. Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer, and possible corrective procedures were considered. C-78019 - Page 5 To define the soil conditions within critical areas, 13 shallow exploration borings were then drilled, using hand -operated equipment be- cause of the access restrictions. The purpose of the borings was to deter- mine the depth to the shale and the general characteristics of the upper sandy soils. Several undisturbed samples were obtained for.laboratory testing and inspection. The detailed logs of the borings and the results of the laboratory tests will be kept in our files for future reference. The locations of the 13 borings are shown on Plate 1. Using the information from the borings, six cross -sections were drawn for the locations shown on Plate 1 for the purpose of studying the embankment conditions at the selected locations. The six sections are shown on Plates 2-A through 2-C, Sections. The sections show the soil conditions encountered in the borings, the estimated profile of the slope prior to failure, and the present shape of the slope at the section location. The estimated contact between the sandy soil and the shale is interpreted from the boring data and from our geologic reconnaissance. The surface improvements, such as patios, fences, and nearby build- ings and walls, are also shown on the sections. In addition, the location of the approximate geologic set -back line, as originally recommended in our 1968 report, is shown with respect to the slope. The geologic set -back line was established in 1968 as the recommended limit beyond which structures i C-78019 - Page 6 should not be constructed unless their foundations were deepened sufficiently to be below a projected line from the toe of the bluff to the geologic set- back line. General SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES The procedure selected for minimizing the sloughing and erosion of the top of the bluff depends somewhat on the desire to maintain the exist- ing land area for use at the facility and the proximity of the top of the bluff to adjacent structures. Where there is sufficient space, a simple flattening of the slope could prove adequate, at least for several years. In other areas, the retreating of the bluff is encroaching on improvements which it is probably desirable to maintain. In other instances, more critical structures are affected, such as Building 37, the block retaining wall, and patio areas at Building 35. in some areas, corrective procedures could be deferred if desirable. However, in more critical areas, it will be important to take early corrective action so as to minimize additional loss of property and possible risk to adjacent structures. The primary procedure for preserving critical areas will be to retain the upper sandy soils and yet permit free drainage of those soils. One effective procedure will be to construct a stabilization wall utiliz- ing bags of sand -cement. Of course, some form of conventional retaining wall is often applicable, with a bulkhead wall offering advantages in some cases. In addition to providing support to the upper sandy material, C-78019 - Page 7 corrective procedures should include controlling the drainage adjacent to the top of the bluff so that run-off and water infiltration is minimized. The geologic reconnaissance and borings indicate that three segments of the bluff should be corrected. The first segment (identified as Segment 1 on Plate 1) is some 150 feet in length and extends from Building 37 to the existing block retaining wall oppos-ite Building 32• The present con- ditions at this location are shown by Sections A -A and B-B on Plate 2-A. The second segment (Segment 2 on Plate 1) includes the retaining wall opposite Building 32, as shown by Section C-C on Plate 2-B. The third condition (Segment 3 on Plate 1) includes the portion of the study.area adjacent to Building 35, and is shown on Section D-D on Plate 2-B, and on Sections E-E and F-F on Plate 2-C. Segment 1 The temporary sand -cement bag wall built under emergency conditions adjacent to Building 37 is within Segment 1, and is shown as 1-A on Plate 1. This wall was installed without the refinements of a more permanent stabi- lization wall. While it would be desirable to remove the existing bag wall and rebuild it to conform to the recommendations for a more stable• wall, the present bag wall seems to be performing adequately. We suggest that at least another layer of sand bags be placed on the outside face of the existing bag wall and that this outer layer be staked to the existing bags by driving reinforcing bars at least three feet in length. A sketch C-78019 - Page 8 showing our suggestion is presented on Plate 3-A.1, Suggested Correction, Segment 1-A. in addition, the ground surface adjacent to this area should be covered with a concrete slab which drains away from the top of slope. Probably the most positive method of protecting the remaining portion of Segment 1 (Segment 1-B) would be to install a retaining wall which would extend into the shale. Such a wall would be some 12 to 14 feet in height, with foundations extending at least three feet into the shale. The properly drained wall should be designed to support an equivalent fluid pressure of at least 30 pounds per cubic foot. The maximum foundation pressure at the toe of the wall should not exceed 4,000 pounds per square foot. A friction value of 0.4 could be used between the concrete and shale for resistance to sliding. Alternately, if the upper slope of the bluff in Segment 1-B can be considered somewhat expendable, or more permanent corrective procedures can be deferred until such time as is found necessary to construct a retaining wall, it would be possible to provide protection to the embankment by either flattening the upper portion of the bluff to a more stable inclination, or by installing a wall constructed of sand -cement bags. If sufficient property is available, the face of the bluff could be trimmed to a 2:1 horizontal to vertical) slope above the shale level. The finished slope should be planted with erosion resistant vegetation. The toe of the slope IF C-78019 - . Page 9 could be given additional erosion protection with the installation of a minimal sand -cement bag wall. The details of this suggestion are presented on Plate 3-A.2, Suggested Correction, Segment 1-B. Alternately, a more maintenance -free procedure would be the con- struction of a stabilization wall using sand -cement bags. The bottom of the bag wall should extend into the underlying impervious shale. The base width of the wall should be one-half the height of the wall, with a minimum width of four feet. Additional resistance could be developed by driving reinforcing bars through the bags. The details of this suggestion are given on Plate 3-A.3, Suggested Correction, Segment 1-B. Segment 2 This segment involves the block retaining wall for the emergency equipment access road opposite Building 32, as shown by Section C-C on Plate 2-B. At present, the slippage of the face of the bluff is somewhat surficial and probably only involves the outer two or three feet of the embankment. However, if it is allowed to continue, it is possible that the top of the bluff could retreat sufficiently to undermine, or at least jeopardize, the foundations for the retaining wall. One way to correct the situation and provide adequate support for the retaining wall would be to deepen the support of the existing retaining wall footings by underpinning the footings down to the shale (a distance of J C-78019 - Page 10 approximately 7 or 8 feet). Alternately, drilled concrete piles could be installed adjacent to the toe of the existing retaining wall and extending into the shale so as to provide a pile support for the foundation of the existing block wall. Piling would have to extend a minimum of ten feet into the shale and be designed to provide lateral resistance for the exist- ing wall. If this procedure is considered desirable, we will be pleased to provide the necessary design information for the piles. Another permanent -type solution would be to construct a new wall to replace the existing wall. There are several possibilities for this pro- cedure and they are more realistically examined by your structural engineer. Again, if this is a desirable solution, we will be pleased to provide the structural engineer with the necessary design data for the new wall. A procedure which has a greater degree of risk than any of the above would be to develop a stabilization blanket for the outer face of the bluff in the area where sloughing is occurring. This would essentially be a modification of the sand -cement hag wall suggested for Section 1-B (Plate 3-A.31. in the case of the slope below the existing retaining wall, the purpose of the blanket would be to provide sufficient protection to mini- mize further erosion and sloughing of the outer face of the slope. If this procedure is selected, we would suggest that the bags extend into the shale in a similar manner as suggested on Plate 3-A-3, and that the blanket be C-78019 - Page 11 at least four feet wide. In using this procedure, as in using the same technique in other areas, it should be realized that it does not guarantee no future erosion or maintenance; however, it should minimize the potential for sloughing and extend the period before any permanent support, such as the retaining wall, is required. Segment 3 This segment relates to approximately 150 feet of the bluff adja- cent to Building 35, where erosion, sloughing, and slipping is occurring to a significant degree. At a number of locations, the top of the bluff is now coincident with the wood fence which borders the westerly side of the pat.io areas. The depth of the sandy terrace soils in this area is on the order of seven or eight feet. The slope of the bluff below the terrace is fairly steep, varying from approximately 1/2:1 to 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). There is also an old landslide mass, the top of which is some 15 or 20 feet below the top of the bluff in this area. The drainage above this landslide mass should be improved so as to reduce the risk of activating the slide. Our suggestion for re-establishing and stabilizing the property at the top of the bluff in this area is shown on Plate 3-B, Suggested Correc- tion, Segment 3. It essentially consists of building a bulkhead or shoring C-78019 - Page 12 wall near the top of the existing embankment using drilled, cast -in -place friction piles for both vertical and lateral support of the wall. The sections of wall between the piles could consist of either concrete panels or wood lagging. The suggested details for this type of structure are shown on Plate 4, Concept of Bulkhead Construction. The bulkhead should be designed for an active earth pressure, after backfilling, of 30 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure. The wall should be designed to support the soil above the shale contact. The panel portion of the wall should extend at least one foot into the shale to act as a cut-off for seepage and prevent piping of the sandy material below the wall. For vertical loads, the drilled piles supporting the wall may be designed to use a friction value of 1,000 pounds per square foot of the rcontact area between the pile and the adjacent shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be neglected in computing the vertical capacity. The lateral resistance of drilled piles may be computed by using rany acceptable pole formula such as the UBC formula. When considering the pole formula, the lateral resistance of the shale may be taken equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 500 pounds per cubic foot; Ma one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The above re- commended values are for piles installed into the shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be neglected in computing the lateral resistance of the pile. C-78019 - Page 13 Plate 4 includes suggested details relative to construction pro- cedures for a bulkhead wall. Essentially, it is suggested that the sandy material be excavated to the shale level within the area of the proposed wall alignment. A slope not to exceed 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical') should be used for temporary excavation. After the piles are installed, and the wall sections constructed, the wall should be backfilled with either slurry mix, gravel, or compacted soil. The following additional procedures are suggested for the purpose of improving the resistance of Segment 3 to further erosion and sloughing' problems adjacent to the bluff: 1. The patio area opposite Building 35 should have a continuous concrete slab. It would be preferable, if possible, to struc- turally connect the patio slab to the bulkhead wall. The slab should be sloped so that it drains away from the top of the slope and to positive drainage control devices. Planters should have bottoms or drains leading to enclosed drainage devices. 2. The roof drains for the building should be led to positive drainage devices. 3. The existing drainage devices should be thoroughly checked for integrity. Particularly, the discharge of the storm drain C-78019 - Page 14 system should be checked to verify that it flows into a posi- tive drainage channel. 4. The graded area in front of the bulkhead should be drained to a downdrain to control run-off in front of the bulkhead wall. 5. The gully behind the landslide, downslope of Building 35, should be cleared of vegetation and a concrete or gunite gutter constructed to drain the water to the nearby downdrain. CONCLUSIONS The suggestions contained in this report are necessarily somewhat general since each portion of the embankment is an individual condition requiring individual treatment. After you have reviewed our suggestions and considered possible corrective procedures, we will be pleased to pro- vide consultation in developing any refinements or additional data needed to finalize the corrective procedures. LC-JM/lb Attachments (8) 6 copies submitted) Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES _ byevja a C.E. 11833 ce Presiaot CeeTooyTCranh4l, R.C.E. 6157 President cc: (2) Brittain Poteet, III, Structural Engineer u H P \ w y e is L.C.BA. REPORT A-69249) J! BOR.5 - ° y 4 J as e7y t(iYd Tf- 1. f 1•wW 13 r KEY; 9*— BORING NO. 9 LOC. 103.5—GROUND SURFACE ELEV. 6 /2—DEPTH TO SHALE (FEET) A A QJ— SECTION LINE (SEE PLATES 2-A, 2-B, 2-C) lam_J— PREVIOUS L.C.9A. BORING SEE JOB A-68249 SEGMENT 7O2,0012 O2L 6SUp/ qRp li'BLID€ GNBLF SITE SEE PLATE 3-A) -- PLAN SCALE 1((= 20, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES a;g/ \ j l _ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF rttvvt1T A-6a299] GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE BOR.4 0 SEE L.C.BA. REPORT A-68249 Q 9 DATED DEC. 26, 19681 103.3 T61,2 W A C- 106t — — _ _ _'o wv .. •e C e l wL6 2 71/J7 ^F71 CRACKS S rsr, 7 PROPERTY LINE--2 -` a.a e Two 48Z \ \ G sON\ J \ I EROSION GULLY / Q OF.tP SHELF \4 a Pyi 1p OLD LANDSLIDE C0HC / CROCK \ // f-• IN SOIL \ '_ c \ 6 0 101.0 w 'JT.J v \ % . I°• wOJp A.uq. 103.0• o1s elraclLs _ T __ av2v2 O— p eC SAW — — `4 La T 102.9 9 7 1 fl Tr SEGMENT 2 - KEFACtO FOK 6ER90M BAKAK 4 A550CIATES 900 FEW14bU .A AVt 5AN MATEO, CA 8AA01 ATTN' UOWLAS K. ITEARSOL) SEE L.C.BA. REPORT A-682491 GULLIES 101.O6 r_y nJ_ CONC. OR41N EDGE 5UT1 LO- 1 SEGMENT 3 (SEE PLATE 3-8) eiiICMIM[. A1M,IRJI CAP 9TAWJO A19 70 AJ01T 0.41'oF A ART AtOTK 1AMMIt 4W "GO Ip r Rlr[i 16A Of tHl PK:FIC ChA T YI;wAl t0 nw Ifs."!* of A 1 11 ate .M••TAR: 19 • rl!' YM7.tAST OF '"I UITERJI4 MM.YO. NIL* IS A WAS, CAP, . :..'Jr111 YF it Y . '• NVt OF ?.I Y1o:AA1 7 Till 40A•'1M11r OF Trr Cunt of 1.1 wo.N. H' !, T*1 Too `Clt `L><lJ( `WiOYpl`•)TMf LB w....MK`9 1C1t .O1TNusT COMER Of 4 71 4.1 Cyay Tt CATCH Usib, 0.4 Or A TOOT YIWO I" lid W N IL1YAt 10444.1141. 1970 W •• • •• •• •••• •_•• .."' • • •••••• Owa 4CAtt 4 M 116 1••w• t PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHICAL PLA N PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS LOT NO. 3 TRACT NO. 6947 CITY OF NEWPOJ(T BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CAL r AT F. 1 tl, I iL lL L L L L I 011 LA L L La i I 1 vI lr F- a I, .. A Y L mI m I h 1•' WWLL z z0 Q 1JW WOOD FENCE CLOSEST EDGE APPROX. LOCATION OF OF BLOC, 37 TO ( GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE TOP Of SLOPE 1 PROJECTED) EDGE OF E%1ST, BLDG. NO. 37 I I 1i OR. 123 I CONC, BkAB PROJECTEDI i ESTIMATED GROUND SURFACE i 1 PRIOR TO 1978 STORMS Ir L-9_ FOOTING (AS EXPOSED FILL SLURRY SANDY -SILT i SOIL -CEMENT BAG WALL CONSTRUCTED FILL 6 .. IN MARCH 1978 POORLY GRADED SANDS APPROX. GROUND SURFACE AFTER STORMS PlllSANDY - SILT 32 SOIL — —ISHALESHALE ISTIMATED J8 LOOSE SOIL REMOVED ANDBENCHWASCONSTRUCTED IN SHALE PRIOR TO PLACING CONTACT SOIL -CEMENT BAGS BETWEEN SOIL B SHALE APPROX. GROUND SURFACE 14 - AFTER 1978 STORMS Ll Joe 106 104 102 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 FWWU. z z0 Q WJW EDGE OF EXIST LOG. NO. 36 APPROX LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE WOOD FENCE -. .. _. _....-_. __._.._. C ONC. i AR BORAI ESTIMATED GROUND SURFACE PRIOR TO 1978 STORMS 1 GROUND SURFACE AFTER STORMS FluSANDY - SILT _. _.._..._-.-- 16 . . ... . .. .. ... - -• ---- DOR.I - --- FILLSILTY - SAND i 32 / SANDY -CLAY SILTY -SAND SANDY_CLAYL-SK-ALE SHAL SHALE 1 E STIMA7ED CONTACT 18 BETWEEN SOIL AND SHALE SECTION A -A S E C T 1 0 N. S SECTION B- B SCALE 1" = 4' 11 08 06 04 JG 00 1- WW 18 IL 96 z 94 92 0 Q 90 W Be 86 84 82 80 LeROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES r' L L L f L K L L L b?i dl 9IL. 91- L` OID L m f h L 1 I- fID 102 Z 94 86 62 78 CONC. SILK. RE7 WALL •- FOOTING AS EXPOSED) FAILURE CRACKS WITH BOR. 2 OFFSETS UP TO I• NIGH \ i \ rug -- 1 CONC. ESTIMATED GROUNDSURFACEP41OR --- - --- - TO 1978 STORMS \ / CRACKS FILL SILTY -SAND GROUND SURFACE / AFTER 1970 STORMS / i SOIL SHALE i SHALE ESTIMATED CONTACT BETWEEN SOIL AND SHALE SECTION APPROX. 12• TO GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE+ 10 08 06 04 02 00 F 98 m U. 96 Z 94 92 p F- 90 1 W88 B6 84 82 80 78 1- WW U_ C - C S E C T 1 0 N S S CA LE I" = 4' SECTION D —D 2 w WB U. 6 4 92 20 F 90 - 1 88 86 84 82 80 78 LeROY CRANDALL 81 ASSOCIATES B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 4: ri J.; 1 u a1A I r- I 1 0 0h 1 1 i NO. 4 REHM STAKES SEE NOTE N0.3) ADD NEW SOIL -CEMENT BAGS tSHADEDI •il SEE NOTE NO. 1) 96 2 Z92 ----- ._—_.....—._ O Q - JW • 88 CLOSES EDGE 1OFSLIR. 37 TO 1 TOP OF SLOPE O (PRJECTETCD) 1 WOOD PENCE 1 i CONO. S r L_-=- FOOTING IAS EXPOSED! NOTE: EXTEND CONCRETE. SLAB, A7 NECESSARY, TO COVER GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN TOP OF SLOPE AND BUILDING. EDGE OF EXIST. SLOG. NO. 37 I I 108 106 104 102 too wW 98 LL• 96 f APPROX. GROUND I SURFACE AFTER STORMS 94 1 1 SOIL -CEMENT SAO. 1 WALL CONSTRUCTER 92 OINMARCH1978 SON. / 9O WSHALE LOOSE SOIL REMOVED AND -- NOTES: 98 BENCH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN SNALE PRIOR TO PLACING 1. ADD NEW LAYER OF SOIL -CEMENT BAGS TO INCREASE Td ICY.NE55 CF EXISTINGSOa-CEMENT SAGS STABILIZATION BLANKET. 86 2. CONSTRUCT FACE OF BLANY.ET AT 1:1 INCLINA ION OR FATTER. APPROX. GNDUND SURFACE S484 - -- AFTER 1978 STORMS '• -- " - -' 7-3. STAKE NEW BAGS TO OLD BAGS WITH F4 RE:NFO C1.`•S BARS (3- Hi:,!HUH LENGTH) - NOTE: FROM SECTION A -A, PLATE 2-A. ON THREE-FOOT CENTERS EACH WAY. 4. EXTEND CONCRETE SLAB BETWEEN EXISTING W900 FLY.CE AND BUILOI!:G 37 IN THE 82 I AREA OF THE STABILIZATION BLANKET. RA1N YA 3 ARCA ^.JAY FF.;im TOP OF SLOPE. 80 SUGGESTED 'CORRECTION SEGMENT I - A ) i LeROY CRANDALL 8 ASSOCIATES r L.H i C. J-H.1 u lob 104 1- wwLL 96 z O 192 wJW 88 EDGE 0 BLDG N APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE WOOD FENCE REMOVE IF NECESSARY) EXIST. CONC. SLAB PLANT SLOPE OR COVER WITH BAGS REGRAOE YARDS TO DRAIN FINAL SLOPE EYOVE OR TRIM \ GROUND SURFACE ) R2 EXISTING SLOPE AFTER STORMS AS NECESSARY _ TOE PROTECTION USING SOIL - CEMENT BAGS 3' MIH. INSTAL FILTER CLOTH - _ _ _. _ _ _ , ,• . __ ___ I I MATERIAL UNDER BAGS SOIL _— SHALE NOTE: FROM SECTION B-B, PLATE 2-A. STAKES - NO.4 BARS, 3 FEET LONG, ' ON 3 FOOT CENTERS. , NOTES: 1_ REGRADE SLOPE BY FLATTENING TO 2:1 (I{'.-i,:GTAL TO VERTICAL). i 2. REMOVE OR TRIM LOOSE SOILS BELOW TOE ;;F ;-1, AS 'IECES SARY. 3. CONSTRUCT A SOIL -CEMENT BAG STABILE:! IC -I RL:•!;KET AT TOE OF SLOPE, AT LEAST THREE FEET HIGH AND THREE FEET :I •;E. PLAL,E FILTER CLOFH MATERIAL BETWEEN BAGS AND FACE OF SLOPE. STAij :,SS WITH T.!3AR. 4. EITHER PLANT SLOPE WITH EROSION REST"..::;; VEGETATION, OR PLACE A LAYER I OF SOIL -CEMENT BAGS OVER FACE OF SLOilt ).:R EROSION PROTECTION. I SUGGESTED CORRECTION SEGMENT I - B ) lob 06 104 102 we, F- LUW98 LL 96 z 94 J 92 0 IF i90 W w i 188 86 184 i 82 J 89 6, 0Y CRA.4 ALL a 45S0,, AT_S aq: EDGE OF EXIST - BLDG_ NO. 36 \ 106 APPROX. LOCATION OF MOOD FENCE GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE REMOVE IF NECESSARY) 104 ___ _. _ ___- ._ _.. ._ ..._____._—_______ f-•----- i 1 4 MIN. , i BENCH INTO BACK I SLOPE IF NECESSANY CONC. SLAB 102 REGRAOE YARD AREAS I , SEE NOTE B)_ _______ 1 100 100 F GROUND SURFACE AFTER STORMS` / / w W , /, / BENCH AS NECESSARY 98 LL U- yy DURING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE OR TRIM EXISTING SLOPE —.- ----_ .• AS NECESSARY 1 ° _ 96 96 - —. .__.. ._. _ _ .. 1 a _ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPE z NOTES: y° y 1 NO./ REBAR STARES 1. EXCAVATE FOR STABILIZATION BAGiWALL AT DESIRED LOCATION. EXTEND 94 3/4 (SEE NOTE NO.3) EXCAVATIONINTOSHALE. INCLINE BASE FQR WALL AWAY FROM SICPE. CUT PLASTIC PERFORATED I TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIOII SLOPE AT 3/40 (HORI:ONTAL TO VERTICAL). WALL' I PLASTIC TOE GRAIN I o 92 --_ ON S FOOT CENTERS I \ / --- - - TO HAVE A EASE WIDTH OF 1/2 TH: HEIGHT'(4' MINIMUM). 9`L 00 6" MIN. 12 MIM. INTO?SHALE r SHALE7 2. INSTALL TWO-INCH-DIAHETER PERFORATED PLASTIC PIPE DRAINS AT FIVE-FOOT j CENTERS, NEAR BASE OF BAG WALL. 90 w w / T w 1 SLOPE BASE =s- 3, USE SOIL -CEMENT FILLED CLOTH BAGS (IOY CEMENT) TO CONSTRUCT WALL. WIDTH- 1/2 HEIGHT I 88 ---- - la' Mlx.l _-._, __-__•_-_ __ __ ._ _ __ 4. STAKE BAGS, ON THREE-FOOT CENT:{RS EACH WAY, WITH -'4 REBARS. —j 88 j. CONSTRUCT FACE OF BAG WALL AT 1:1 OR FLATTER. 86 6. TOP WIDTH OF WALL TO BE FOUR FEET MINIMUM. BENCH INTO CONSTRUCTION { SLOPE AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE HINIMUM WIDTH OF WALL. 841 - - 7. REGRADE YARD AREAS TO DRAIN AWAY FROM TOP OF SLOPE. COL IEI.F YARD 84, DRAINAGE IN CONTROLLED DRAINAGE DEVICES. L B. THIS PROCEDURE IS INTENDED FORIHEIGHTS OF'12 FEET OR LESS. THE 82 STABILIZATION WALL IS NOT INTENDED TO BE EQUIVALENT TO A RLINFORCED Q^ CO': CRITE 80 NOTE: FROM SECTION D-8, PLATE 2-A. SUGGESTED - CORRECTION SEGMENT I - B ) I LeROY CRANDALL 6 ASSOCIATES 0 NOTE: FROM SECTION F-F, PLATE 2-C. 108 96 2 z0 a WJW 84 GUARD CONC. BLOCK WALL OF LAGGING \ SONOTUBE PILASTER\ APPROX. GROUND SURFACE AFTER 1978 STORMS \ REMOVE MATERIAL IN FRONT OF._,___ NEW WALL. NEW CONCRETE OR GUNITE GUTTER. / CONTROL FINISH GRADING TO / WEEP HOLES MINIMIXE . EROSION. \ I 108 LOF PROPOSED WALL 106 1 JAPPROXC LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE 104REMOVE — WOOD FENCE NEW CONCRETE SLAB - GRADE TO AREA DRAINS 102 MAIM I 100 I IjGRAVELORSLURRYBACKFILL ; F OR REMOVE DISTURBED I WCOMPACTEDSOILBACKfILLMATERIALASNECESSARY98U. 96 I j Z 3/4 94 L/ CONSTRUCTION SLOPE SOIL _ _i _ — — 92 Z I* MIN SHALE 'E 0 7 a 90 W GRADE BEAM JW ESTIMATED CONTACT I BETWEEN SOIL AND SHALE —" _(" '_ ^ 88 le MIN. DRILLED FRICTION PILE 86 84 82 RECOMMENDED 80 SUGGESTED CORRECTION SEGMENT, 3 ) LeROY CRANDALL 81 ASSOCIATES uto"-"--+Y--^_.c.L-:.'s.:.—_z,..: -_sr_._.-:.. r.:: —' :--e.r---"- _' .=.,.».—'>>.:.. r.,::c.. r.s ._. _..-..:z._ _: _,—_ . .., __.. _:fr: ._. ....__. ;__._._ ,_._ __- _• __ _. SCHEME USING STEEL RE/NFORC/Nc AMC CaVCRETE PL. A /V BLOCK WALL SC'g/ 4i4', N Q 24-/NCH D/A. 61C Tj'P CONC.eETE D.P/GEED P/LE AND COLUM 1' 0 0 0 0 1 APP.EOX/MgTE EX/ST%/VG SLOPE A EXIST. WOOD FENCE SCHEME US/NO LA46/Ny<BETLUEEN FLANGES OF S- BEAMS OR CONCRETE PANELS OR BLOCK BETWEEN CONCRETE COLUMNS I— R.PACTVC'AL D/STANCE , EX/ST//V j O,X-T/O AREA - SCl/EME USIN6 REINFORCED COLUMN SCHEME USING AND CONCRETE BLOCKT/I-BEAMI' AND L4661NG NOTE: G AXd .2Alt NOT Sr//D u/V. SLURRY oq GRANA&EAR CKFILL I -BEAM AND LAGGING, OR REINFOtCED CO.x'A'ETE NB EWCo/YG SLAB-, %COLuryly AND CONCRETE BLOCK W-qu0 J O 41 J 0ZECA57T CONCRETE W PANEL- 5 O e aRES.rORE- TREATED WOOD LA6611V6 . a Y4 I, I SURFACE CONCRETE 1 tt y -O' MIN INTO SNAGS 1 GRADE BEAM -Q NIIy. nvm "'I tIS7EEGLRE/ NBFORCG A z. II. I RE/NFORC/N6 1 I STEED BARS f I 1( I 1 I I 24-INCH3. i t I D/A. C0NC2ETE 4. I I M I I I I ( 1 I DRILLED PE /LI— D oli`..y/R1 r I I IArI c I • 1 1 1 1 I I i I I) I 11 I t 1 2. I3 I I i LI I LL ; i l S. ELEVAT/ ON ` SCALE / Iv=4k. - 7. NOTE: This droauin9 does not i<Present e o rzr>•ocfu.a/ de siyn ei the 6ul,Eh and and is Iirfcvrded } eor i/Irtsf io Einc Purpo s<r only EA REMOvE SOIL 7o SIMLE SvRFACE TO M FOREk/ TT. FILL A WORKLNG AREA. AT COMETi OL%V of W--4LL U7NSTRy/ L•TION 6AADE AREA /N FRONr OF WALL TO DRAIN CXXE Nor£ SOIL SHALE 1-0 affa. /am d'gALE (SEE NOTE 6 a 4I atp P/ LE I la I I I- BEAM OR REINFORCING o o to ITYPICAL EXIST/N6 SLOPE STEEL AFTER 197Ar STORIyS 11 I D = PENETRA7/ON o a I INTO rAWE \ p- I • O FEET MIArIMUM I NEGLECT 7E7P 3 OF PE/YETRATIoN INTO laI SHALE FOA ERTIG4L AND ' I LATERAL S7/PFORT VARIES RO(% NO S,E-C 7-1 0 Al RTH PRESSURES FOR DEW41NING PILE LENGTHS: SCALE / rI= 4 Ertl Active earth pressure (ifter backfilling) - use an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 Kurds per cubic foot. Design wall to support soil abpve shale contact. (See Section). For vertical loads, use a friction value of 1,000 pounds per square foot for the shale. Neglect the upper three feet of shale. Passive resistance of shale - use 500 Pounds per square feet Per fool of depth. Neglect the jpper three feet of shale. Compute required pile length using U.B.C.,pole formula or equivalent ONSTRL' CT ION K0TE5: { Construct a working area by removing soil to apprpxi ately the shale ,y. Install a cpntinuous concrete patio slab from adjacent building to surface_ Tevporary excavation slopes'should not exceed 3/4:1 hers- retaining wall. Grade to drain away from wall. tontai to vertical). , 10. j Eliminate all moisture infiltration into soils from pianten, roof Drill piles (24-inch minimum diameter) at desired loot ion for wall. I gutters, and yard drainage. If planters are used they should have solid bottoms with drain lines leading to catch basins. Piles should attend a -minimum of 10-feet into shale. { it. Construct paved terrace drain at base of new wall and drain to Install full depth reinforcing and fill pile with concrete. I concrete -lined downdrain. Install wall between piles using concrete blocks, treated wood, or { precast concrete lagging, depending on the 4Pe of wall selected. Extend wall, between piles. a minimum of one f.t lot. firm shale. CONCEPT OF Baekfillbehind wall with sand-eementslurry. BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION If concrete wail is used-. provide veep holes above downslope grade. LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES F 7 LJ I' PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS BLUFF EROSION AND SLOUGHING PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FOR GERSON BAKAR AND ASSOCIATES OUR JOB NO. C-78019) Gerson Bakar and Associates Wood Lake Apartments goo Penlnsdla Avenue San Mateo, California 94404 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: March 10, 1978 Preliminary Observations Bluff Erosion and Sloughing Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California for Gerson Bakar and Associates Our Job No. C-78019) We recently observed the erosion and sloughing which is occurring along the bluff overlooking Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. The areas of concern are those at the top of the slopes where adjacent structures could be affected. The erosion and sloughing coincides with a sustained period of rainfall which has deposited, in the last two to three months, more than twice the normal annual rainfall for this area. The most significant sloughing actually occurred after a parti- cularly intense storm on March 11. Either during or shortly after the storm, a significant amount of bluff material sloughed onto Back Bay Road. Also, a small portion of the top of the bluff in the vicinity of Apartment 4830 sloughed to within six feet of one corner of the building. I C-78019 - Page 2 Because of the probability of continued rain, our advice to your maintenance personnel was to place plastic sheeting over the exposed area adjacent to the top of the bluff. This includes the level areas between the top of the bluff and the adjacent structures. We also suggested that the surface drainage, and the roof drainage of adjacent buildings, be controlled with sandbags so as to minimize moisture infiltration into the soils within the immediate area of the bluff. We provided your maintenance personnel with an emergency slope repair procedure for the bluff area adjacent to Apartment 4830. Work has already commenced on repair of this area and is being periodically inspected by our personnel. We have been requested by Mr. Pearson to develop recommendations for correcting the erosion and sloughing conditions. This will require soil investigative work of the existing conditions so that we can discuss alternate corrective procedures with your civil engineering and structural engineering consultants. We will be proceeding with this work as the weather permits. As part of the work for developing corrective procedures, we requested that a survey be made of the top of the bluff within the area of major erosion and sloughage. Mr. Pearson authorized Bein, frost and Associates, Civil Engineers, to proceed with this work. Until permanent solutions are developed, we suggest that the sur- face areas adjacent to the bluff be kept covered with plastic during rainy C-78019 - Page 3 periods. During periods of dry weather, the plastic covering should be temporarily removed to allow the soils to dry as much as possible. Mr. Pearson has informed us that roof gutters will be installed on all the roofs that discharge run-off water towards the bluff, and we strongly agree with this procedure. it will be important to carefully control the gutter discharge so that it is positively connected to the storm drain system. We will continue to work with your personnel on determining proce- dures for minimizing erosion and sloughing of the upper portion of the bluff. However, it must be anticipated that under excessive rainfall con- ditions, the upper soils within and adjacent to the bluff are susceptible to loss of strength and local failure. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES James M. McWe R.C.E. 11833 Vice Presiden 375 LC-JM/lb 4 copies submited) cc: Gerson Bakar and Associates San Francisco LeRoy Crandall, R.C.E. 6157 President LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member Ak RpgERTBEINWIIIIRMFROST juL 2 01998 May 14, 1996 RECEIVED 1 Mr. Ken Dressel Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, California 94133-3298 Subject: Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments I One Park Place Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 Dear Mr. Dressel: This letter presents the results of the monitoring survey and evaluation of data for bi-monthly monitoring of selected survey monuments. The monitoring evaluation was performed in accordance with.our proposal dated September 12, 1995. The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advise included in this letter. MONITORING PROGRAM The purpose of the bi-monthly monitoring program was to evaluate whether selected survey monuments on the slope facing Backbay Drive show displacement which could be indicative of future slope instability. Based on the results of the 1995 annual monitoring program, several survey monuments were selected for the bi-monthly program because they showed significant movement during the 1995 annual monitoring period. We have compared the recent data with previous data sets to evaluate whether a trend is developing that could be indicative of future slope instability. Bi-monthly monitoring of Stations 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047 was performed in September 1995, November 1995, and January 1996 by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) under a separate subcontract with you. The survey readings in September 1995 were compared to the previous data set from May 1995. The readings in November 1995 and January 1996 were compared to the previous data sets of September 1995 and November 1995, respectively. Additionally, all of the bi-monthly readings were compared to the baseline data set from January 1994. LAW Engineering and Environmental Services. Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles. CA 90040.1554 1 213.889-5300 • Fax, 213.721-6700 t Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 I I II I 11 I I I r II II I I It i i The survey of the selected survey monuments by RBF was performed using a combination of Global Positioning System Interferometric and conventional surveying techniques. A report of the survey monitoring results by RBF is attached at the end of this. report. As indicated by RBF, vertical movements (displacements) of 0.07 feet (0.84 inch) and lateral movements of 0.06 feet 0.72 inch) are within the relative error of the survey. Besides the relative error of the survey, local soil conditions not related to slope instability can also affect the survey results. Local soil variations and conditions such as surficial creep and expansive soils can add to the cumulative change in the position of the survey monuments during any of the monitoring periods. Therefore, all recorded changes do no necessarily indicate gross slope instability. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Many of the survey monuments showed significant downward (negative elevation change) and out of slope (westerly) movement during the 1995 annual monitoring period of January 1994 through May 1995. This kind of movement could be indicative of slope instability. Significant incremental and isolated movement of these survey monuments was recorded during the bi-monthly monitoring period of May 1995 through January 1996. However, the movements of the survey monuments during the bi-monthly monitoring program show no trends indicating gross slope instability. For gross instability, we would expect to see widespread movement toward the slope face (west) and downward. This pattern is not evident. All the patterns of movement recorded between May 1995 and January 1996 were localized and variable in nature with changes in horizontal and vertical movements. This type of movement suggests a localized shallow soil condition such as expansive soil or localized surficial soil creep. The monitoring points are grouped by general area. The results of the monitoring will be discussed by area as indicated below. Slope Below Townhomes 4570 Through 4640 And Building 3 Survey monuments 1016 through 1020, 1022 ,and 1023 are included in the bi-monthly monitoring program. These survey monuments are located on the slope below Townhomes 4570 through 4640 and Building 3. The following table summarizes the survey results. Survey monument Cumulative Change During Bi- Cumulative Change Since monthly Monitoring Program (feet) Baseline Readings (feet) May 1995January 1996) (January 1994—January 1991 1017 0.068 east # 1018 # # 1019 0.084 down 0.110 down 1020 # 0.127 north; 0.081 west; 0.148 down 1022 0.082 east # 1023 # # indicates cumulative change less than relative error i Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 The survey monuments that showed significant lateral movement during the bi-monthly monitoring periods (1017 and 1022) both showed displacement to the east (or upslope) of 1-inch or less. During the previous monitoring period of January 1994 through May 1995, survey monument 1017 showed a downward elevation change and a lateral movement to the west; survey monument 1022 showed upward elevation change and a lateral movement to the west. This type of movement (up and down and changes in lateral direction) is localized and appears related to surficial soil conditions and not indicative of gross slope instability. Survey monument 1019, located in the head area of a previously mapped landslide, showed significant downward movement of 0.084 foot during the bi-monthly monitoring program (May 1995 through January 1996); lateral movement was insignificant. Cumulative vertical movement for this monument for the monitoring period of January 1994 through January 1996 is 0.110 foot down. The isolated movement of 1019 seems to be indicative of a local condition and, therefore, is probably not related to gross instability of the slope. The apparently ongoing downward movement recorded at survey monument 1019 over the monitoring period of January 1994 through January 1996 is probably related to localized downhill creep and/or settlement of the existing landslide debris in the area. The lack of movement of other survey monuments in the immediate area during the bi-monthly program suggests the downhill creep and/or settlement of the landslide debris is localized. It should be noted that survey monument 1019 is the only survey monument in this area that showed ongoing movement during the both the 1995 annual monitoring period and the recent bi- monthly monitoring period. None of the other survey monuments in this area that showed significant vertical or lateral movement during the bi-monthly monitoring periods of May 1995 through January 1996 showed significant cumulative movement during the 2-year monitoring period of January 1994 through January 1996. Likewise, none of the survey monuments in this area that showed significant cumulative movement during the 2-year monitoring period (except survey monument 1019) showed significant movement during the bi-monthly monitoring periods of May 1995 through January 1996. This suggests that different localized phenomena are occurring at different times in different localized areas. This does not suggest a pattern of gross slope instability. Slope Below Clubhouse and Pool Survey monuments 1012 and 1013 are included in the bi-monthly monitoring program. These survey monuments are located near the top of slope adjacent to clubhouse and the pool. The following table summarizes the survey results. Survey monument . Cumulative Change During Bi- Cumulative Change Since monthly Monitoring Program (feet) Baseline Readings (feet) 1013 # 0.094 up indicates cumulative change less than relative error 11 Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4.0896.0006 f In this area, both the survey monuments (1012 and 1013) experienced upward and then downward elevation changes during the same consecutive monitoring periods. A positive elevation change was recorded for both survey monuments during the monitoring period of May 1995 through t September 1995 and the negative elevation change was recorded for both survey monuments during the monitoring period of September 1995 through November 1995. This resulted in an insignificant cumulative change for these survey monuments during the bi-monthly monitoring program. Additionally, survey monument 1013 had significant upward elevation change during the previous monitoring period of January 1994 through May 1995. These changes in direction of vertical displacement suggest a locally expansive soil condition related to moisture changes causing localized shrinking and swelling of the soil. Both survey monuments are located in drainage swale areas near the top of the slope which would tend to experience changes in moisture conditions related to rainfall and/or local irrigation. Also, the cumulative movement for the 2-year monitoring period is uphill, and landslides don't move uphill. ISlope Below Building 4 Survey monuments 1003 through 1005, 1007, 1009, 1037, 1039, and 1043 through 1047 are included in the bi-monthly monitoring program. These survey monuments are located in the area adjacent to and downslope of Building•4. The following table summarizes the survey results. Survey monument Cumulative Change During Bi- Cumulative Change Since monthly Monitoring Program (feet) Baseline Readings (feet) May 1995—January 1996) (January 1994—January 1996) 1003 # # 1004 # 1005 # 1007 0.067 north 0.065 north 1009 # 1037 # 0.128 north, 0.297 down 1039 # 0.080 west I043 # 1044 # 0.087 up 1045 0.073 up 1046 # 1047 # indicates cumulative change less than relative error. In the area of Building 4, only two survey monuments out of twelve monitored in the area showed significant movement. One survey monument (1007) is east or upslope of the previously mapped landslide below Building 4. The other survey monument (1045) is within the limits of the landslide. survey monument 1007 showed lateral movement to the north, parallel to the top of slope. survey monument 1045 showed upward movement. Based on the localized displacements, the absence of significant movements on nearby survey monuments, and the upward (rather than 4 Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 downward) elevation change, these movements are probably related to a localized phenomena such as expansive soils and are not related to gross slope instability. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the lack of significant movement of groups of survey monuments and the lack of an apparent trend developing over time suggesting gross slope instability, we recommend the survey - monuments included in the bi-monthly program be monitored on an annual basis in the future, as part of the ongoing annual monitoring program. Although we recommend the monitoring of the survey monuments to be performed on an annual basis in the future, Park Newport maintenance personnel should perform routine checks of the slope below Buildings 3 and 4, the pool and the spa, and Townhomes 4570 through 4640. The inspections should include appurtenant structures and walkways in these areas as outlined in our previous reports dated August 29, 1994 and August 18, 1995. If new signs of distress to the structures are observed, or if irregularities (such as cracks, ponding water, fences out -of -plumb, etc.) are noted, our office should be notified immediately so that a detailed reconnaissance and evaluation can be performed. The detailed evaluation could include more frequent monitoring of survey monuments in the area of distress on a more frequent basis if necessary. It is a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. FRED GF Gfp oc \ S Sincerely, 4% U S PAtll ELLIOTTi SUSAN FRANZEN 01433 LAW/CRANDALL a1754 z} CERTIFIED tr CERTMED ENGNIEERING N/. GEOLOGISTENC3NLERING9 op CALF Susan Franzen Paul Elliott Senior Engineering Geologist enggeo\94-proj\40896R6. DOC/SF:bef 2 copies submitted) U II II Principal Engineering Geologist 0 I JIIIIIIIWU. 7 ft1_1 4 all 4, TN17 24 24, Boom 4 2+.* 91 3 36/ 17 24 al 24 L 21 28 10I T;, I26 29 A— _35 2 35 40 20 40\ P, 4 4541 20 41 49 23 40 43 40 I24132 4 42 22 53 60 68 44 29 63 sT 93 4470 T D 93' I33 f 3 48W 449COLDGBLDG. 3 4W 46Mjy00, 0,6`17 4570 DIMTC 20 7 -1 t7 C$ 41 sAf T JJ I _T NDPN sITffiQRAC AN, AR'ASSUCIAA kill' 7 EP EM sAEL I Val IM 6 QLTPJ MARY -LANDSUDE:: Dq, 9SITS' E AAjQU AW/CRA A L 1114' N D A01Erru n I r 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angele3, Calliomfo 940 40, 2113), PI J U J"i' 4'. A 4 w q E6 2& IATf Q j T-.X I< 04 SC4E* 1" 6Q' Akk PY7. 41 -4 0M. Q JE!5 CONTOUR INTE'RVAL 1 andWAM`FR0,5T`Vi`ASS J, illT"i3l" FW. _11:1_11 I A, ttII : '"4 . 51 4, t 12 ffi)k7 .4' It"' 7Z -44. Is 111.IfsV.- , .. . . 14 1 -) , 1 -.,; '.., I - . . I—, 4; . ;;'N - 1- 111 ME 101 4116S CUII II S, TV A W4 I 40WIPLT WA -., Twl s 171M, 17 I II 9 bber't Beirl, `William 9%- st 6& Associates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS RECEIVED Law/Crandall, Inc. LOS ANGELES OCT 17 I996 October 10, 1995 Mr. Pat Thomas LAW/CRANDELL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-1554 ISubject: Park Newport Monitoring Survey I Dear Mr. Thomas: JN 32184 I am pleased to submit to you the results of the monitoring survey performed at the Park Newport site during September of 1995 (Epoch 9/29/95). This most recent epoch was the first of a series of bi-monthly monitorings on Stations 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047. Please find enclosed the state plane coordinates and elevations for all of the slope monitorings up to this time and a table which compares the coordinates and elevations from this most recent epoch with those generated from prior epochs. The survey was conducted on September 29 and October 2 using a combination of GPS and conventional survey techniques. All survey measurements were combined into a simultaneous least squares adjustment and constrained to the project control stations, PN-0W1 and PN-0002. The final coordinates are in terms of the California State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, Zone 6. The RMS of the relative standard errors for each station between Epoch 9/29/95 and Epoch 5111195 (i.e. between Station 95S 1003 and 95 1003) is 0.06 feet horizontally and 0.07 feet vertically. Note that the coordinates and elevations from the previous surveys have changed slightly. This is because of a new least squares adjustment software package being used for this project. All of the past survey measurements along with the most recent survey measurements were re -adjusted with this new adjustment package to generate new coordinates. Although the coordinates have changed slightly, the relative differences between stations between epochs have remained essentially the same. essronal .Service 43igpc 1944 14725 ALTON PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 57057 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92619.7057 • (714) 472-3505 • FAX (714) 472-8373 OFFICES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA Mr. Pat Thomas Sept. 10, 1995 Page 2 of 2 It was a pleasure to provide these services for you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Daniel W. Bustamante, P.L.S. Project Surveyor GPS Services vw"N I. cc: Ken Dressell - Gerson, Bakar, and Associates 11 Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 30424 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates,1-06-94 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 1003 N-03 2,176,466.833 6,064,240.081 97.165 1004 N-02 2,176,349.446 6,064,305.765 59.960 1005 N-05 2,176,386.459 6,064,396.021 113.801 1006 N-06 2,176,384.164 6,064,205.908 27.540 1007 N-07 2,176,257.621 6,064,479.466 103.056 1008 N-08 2,176,184.703 6,064,439.322 82.966 1009 N-09 2,176,206.013 6,064,339.965 39.176 1010 N-10 2,176,084.373 6,064,439.307 76.368 1011 N-11 2,176,044.972 6.064,486.912 89.425 1012 N-12 2,175,884.428 6,064,484.174 92.227 1013 N-13 2.175,791.358 6,064,486.602 93.632 1014 N-14 2,175,735.228 6,064,458.097 91.302 1015 N-15 2,175,658.359 6,064,462.735 96.696 1016 N-16 2,175,489.172 6,064,421.360 90.392 1017 N-17 2,175,463.871 6,064,440.741 111.704 1018 N-18 2,175,355.032 6,064,412.267 101.755 1019 N-19 2,175,346.263 6,064,391.035 90.749 1020 N-20 2,175,359.261 6,064,363.099 79.171 1021 N-21 2,175,283.373 6,064,377.326 101.728 1022 N-22 2,175,237.245 6,064,353.112 99.772 1023 N-23 2,175,125.845 6,064,418.458 100.133 1030 M 2,176,479.964 6,064,251.353 103.235 1031 L 2,176,486.343 6,064,256.972 102.760 1032 1M 2,176,441.112 6,064,295.541 96.701 1033 1K 2,176,450.789 6,064,306.221 103.728 1034 2M 2,176,407.531 6,064,333.504 96.146 1035 2K 2,176,418.561 6,064,342.906 103.950 1036 3M 2,176,377.910 6,064,367.244 96.828 1037 3L 2.176,382.874 6,064,374.196 102.438 1038 4N 2,176,339.748 6,064,372.741 86.775 1039 4M 2,176,358.507 6,064,389.264 97.637 1040 4L 2,176,363.923 6,064,395.317 103.435 1041 5P 2,176,302.327 6,064,377.562 81.087 1042 5N 2,176,321.061 6,064,394.100 1043 5M 2,176,339.778 6,064,410.479 99.132 1044 5L 2,176,346.026 6,064,416.221 103.712 1045 6P 2,176,263.509 6,064,423.147 85.954 1046 6N 2,176,281.621 6,064,438.991 93.316 1047 6M 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.436 104.206 1048 6L 2,176,306.824 6,064,460.957 Robert•Bein, William Frost and Associates JN 31858 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 5-11-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 A. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME • -U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. R 1 PN-0001 2,175,256.266 6,064,604.225 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 951003 N-03 2,176,466.839 6,064,240.084 97.130 951004 N-02 2,176,349.432 6,064,305.709 59.959 95 1005 N-05 2,176,386.444 6,064,396.018 113.711 95 1006 N-06 2,176,384.172 6,064,205.922 27.480 951007 N-07 2,176,257.656 6,064,479.448 103.015 95 1008 N-08 2,176,184.728 6,064,439.326 82.912 951009 N-09 2,176,206.026 6,064,339.932 39.156 951010 N-10 2,176,084.372 6,064,439.296 76.339 95 1011 N-11 2,176,044.983 6,064,486.906 89.431 951012 N-12 2,175,884.402 6,064,484.150 92.279 951013 N-13 2,175,791.379 6,064,486.589 93.723 95_1014 N-14 2,175,735.253 6,064,468.082 91.329 95 1015 N-15 2,175,658.372 6,064,462.743 96.732 95 1016 N-16 2,175,489.194 6,064,421.363 90.322 95 1017 N-17 2,175,463.873 6,064,440.730 111.661 951018 N-18 2,175,355.058 6,064,412.266 101.746 951019 N-19 2,175,346.292 6,064,391.029 90.634 95 1020 N-20 2,175,359.346 6,064,363.039 79.015 951021 N-21 2,175,283.406 6,064,377.166 101.709 95_1022 N-22 2,175,237.240 6,064,353.093 99.758 951023 N-23 2,175,125.856 6,064,418.466 100.107 957 1030 M 2,176,479.638 6,064,251.338 103.221 951031 L 2,176,486.359 6,064,256.987 102.743 951032 1M 2,176,441.088 6,064,295.522 96.684 951033 I 2,176,450.759 6,064,306.205 103.752 951034 2M 2,176,407.552 6,064,333.531 96.124 951035 2K 2,176,418.546 6,064,342.876 103.956 951036 3M 2,176,377.884 6,064,367.228 96.808 9571037 3L 2,176,382.975 6,064,374.172 102.134 951038 4N 2,176,339.802 6,064.372.788 86.735 951039 4M 2,176,358,405 6,064,389.182 97.610 95 1040 4L 2,176,363,905 6,064,395.313 103.393 951041 5P 2,176,302.325 6,064,377.524 81.060 95 1042 5N 2,176,321.054 6,064,394.075 87.726 95 1043 5M 2,176,339.710 6,064,410.450 99.065 951044 5L 2,176,345.982 6,064,416.188 103.760 951045 6P 2,176,262.786 6,064,422.503 85.894 951046 6N 2,176,281.511 6,064,438.993 93.249 951047 6M 2,176,300.224 6,064,455.435 104.153 951048 6L 2,176,306.865 6,064,460.964 103.776 I I 1 1. Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 9-29-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA.NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. ft 1 PN-0001 2,175,255.266 6,054,604.225 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 95S 1003 N-03 2,176,466.834 6,064,240.084 97.143 95S 1004 N-04 2,176,349.427 6,064,305.745 59.915 95S 1005 N-05 2,176,386.467 6,064,396.030 113.708 95S 1007 N-07 2,176,257.622 6,064,479.442 103.070 95S 1009 N-09 2,176,206.005 6,064,339.949 39,153 95S_1012 N-12 2,176,884.379 6,064,484.180 92.370 95S 1013 N-13 2,175,791.387 6,064,486.633 93.806 95S 1016 N-16 2,175,489.192 6,064,421.324 90.338 95S 1017 N-17 2,175,463.888 6,064,440.798 111.673 95S 1018 N-18 2,175,355.045 6,064,412.314 101.744 95S 1019 N-19 2,175,346.295 6,064,391.033 90.687 95S 1020 N-20 2,175,359.324 6,064,363.044 79.021 95S 1022 N-22 2,175,237.252 6,064,353.175 99.703 95S 1023 N-23 2,175,125.853 6,064,418.496 100.094 95S 1037 3L 2,176,382.967 6,064,374.192 102.111 95S 1039 4M 2,176,358.399 6,064,389.191 97.644 95S I 043 5M 2,176,339.726 6,064,410.476 99.086 95S 1044 5L 2,176,345.995 6,064,416.217 103.758 95S 1045 6P 2,176,262.789 6,064,422.530 85.905 95S 1046 6N 2,176,281.551 6,064,439.027 93,264 95S 1047 6M 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.431 104.179 7 LJ V Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star "Net Adjustment 32184 Change in Coordinates and Elevations ! Epoch 9129195 vs. Prior Epoch 5111/95 STA NO. NORTHING(Y) EASIING(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (9/29195) ELEV. (ft) STA. NO. NOR] HINUkT) tAZ3 I ING(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (5/11/95) ELEV. (ft) CHANGE RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST PRIOR: ELEV G RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST INITIAL ELEV 4. 4 4 4• 2 2,176.340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180' 2 2,176.340.414 6,064,779.489 105.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 O:000 0.000 - 0.000 95S_1003 2,176,466.834 6,064.240.084 97.143 95_1003 2,176,466.839 6,064.240.084 97.130 0.004 0.000 0.013 01001 0.003 0.022 95S 1004 2,176,349.427 6,064,305.745 59.915 951004 2,176,349.432 6;p64,305.709 59.959 0.005 0.036 0.044 01019 0.020 0.045 95S1005 2,176,3861467 6,064,396.030 113.708 95__1005 2,176,386.444 6,064,396.018 113.711 0.023 0.012 0.003 0008 0.009 0.094 95S71007 2,176,257.622 6,064,479.442 103.070 95 1007 2,176,257.656 6,064.479.448 103.015 0.034 0.006 0.054 0:000 0.024 0.014 95S_1009 2,176,206.005 6,064,339.949 39.153 95_1009 2,176,206.026 6,064.339.932 39.156 0.022 0.017 0.004 0;009 0.016 0023 95S7 1012 2,175,884.379 6,064,484.180 92.370 951012 2,175,884.402 6,064,484.150 92.279 0.022 0.031 0.091 0.049 0.006 0:143 95S1013 2,1i75,791.387 6,064,486.633 93.806 95_ 1013 2,175,791.379 6,064.486.589 93.723 0.008 0.044 0.083 0!029 0.031 01174 95S71016 2,175,489.192 6,064,421.324 90.338 95 1016 2,175,489.194 6,064,421.363 90.322 0.003 0.039 Q.016 0'020 0.036 01053 95S_1017 2.176,463.888 6,064,440.798 111.673 95 1017 2,175,463.873 6.064,440.730 111.661 0.015 0.068 0.012 01017 0.057 0.61 95S_ 1018 2,175.355.045 6,064,412.314 101.744 95_1018 2,175.355.058 6,064,412.266 101.746 0.013 0.048 6.002 01013 0.047 0.011 95S 1019 2,175,346.295 6,064,391.033 90.687 951019 2.176,346.292 6,064,391.029 90.634 0.003 0.004 0.053 0032 0.002 0.061 95S 1020 2,175,359.324 6,064,363.044 79.021 95_1020 2,175,359.346 6,064,363.039 79.015 0.022 0.006 0.006 01063 0.054 0.150 95S1022 2,175,237.252 6,064,353.175 99.703 95_1022 2,175,237.240 6,064,353.093 99.758 0.011 0.082 0.055 01007 0.063 0.069 95S__1023 2,175,125.853 6,064,418.496 100.094 95_1023 2,175,125.856 6,064,418.466 100.107 0.003 0.031 0.012 0:008 0.038 0.038 95S 1037 2,176,382.967 6,064,374.192 102.111 95_1037 2,176,382.975 6.064,374.172 102.134 0.008 0.020 0.023 O4093 0.004 0.327 95S 1039 2,176,358.399 6,064,389.191 97.644 951039 2,176,358.405 6,064,389.182 97.610 0.006 0.010 0.034 4108 0.073 0.006 95S 1043 2,176,339.726 6,064,410.476 99.086 95__1043 2,176,339.710 6,064,410450 99.065 0.016 0.026 0.021 0'052 0.003 0.045 95S 1044 2,176,345.995 6,0,416.21764 103.758 95_1044 2,176,345.982 6,064,416.188 103.760 0.013 0.029 0.002 01031 0.005 O.D46 95S 1045 2,176,262.789 6,064,422.530 85.905 95 1045 2,176,262.786 6,064,422.503 85.894 0.003 0.027 0.012 0.048 95S1046 2,176,281.551 6,064,439.027 93.264 95_1046 2,176,281.511 6,064,438.993 93.249 0.040 0.033 0.015 0!030 0.035 0.062 95S7 1047 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.431 104.179 195_1047 2,176,300.224 6.064,455.435 104.153 0.OD6 0.004 0.026 01,001 4005 0.027 0 ober't Heirl,`William `Frost 6&lssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS RECEIVE O LAWICRANDALL, INC., Los Angetos DEC 1 1 1995 December 6, 1995 Mr. :Pat Thomas LAW/CRANDELL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-1554 FlIF Subject: Park Newport Monitoring Survey Dear Mr. Thomas: JN 32184 I am pleased to submit to you the results of the monitoring survey performed at the Park Newport site during November of 1995 (Epoch 11/28/95). This most recent epoch was the second of a series of bi-monthly monitorings on Stations 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047. Please find enclosed the state plane coordinates and elevations for all of the slope monitorings up to this time' and a table which compares the coordinates and elevations from this most recent epoch with those generated from prior epochs. The survey was conducted on November 28 through November 30 using a combination of GPS and conventional survey techniques. All survey measurements were combined into a simultaneous least squares adjustment and constrained to the project control stations, PN-0001 and PN-0002. The final coordinates are in terms of the California State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, Zone 6. The RMS of the relative error ellipse for each station between Epoch 11/28/95 and prior Epoch 9/29/95 (i.e. between Station 95N 1003 and 95S_1003) is 6.05 feet horizontally and 0.07 feet vertically. 13 it' slonai ,e.rs-xe =:::p c 14 1.4725 ALTON PARKWAY . P O BOX 57057 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92619-7057 • (714) 472-3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 nc-1nFC I nCATFn THRM itI-in1 IT nAl IPnONIA 1 It was a pleasure to provide these services for you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Daniel . Bustamante, P,.L.S. Project Surveyor GPS Services cc: Keri Dressell - Gerson, Bakar, and Associates i 1 1 1 1 i I Robert eein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates,11-28-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 Tq, NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME METERS ELEV.(m) 1 PN-0001 663,019.436 1,848,495.065 33.374 2 PN-0002 663,349.885 1,848,548.484 32.05y 95N 1003 N-03 663,388.417 1,848,384.074 29.610 95N 1004 N-04 663,352,628 1,848,404.077 18.276 95N 1005 N-05 663,361919 1,848,431.598 34.659 95N 1007 N-07 663,324!649 1,848,457.038 31.411 95N 1009 N-09 663,308.924 1,848,414.511 11.950 95N 1012 N-12 • 663,210,895 1,848,458.471 28.114 95N 1013 N-13 663,182.537 1,848,459212 28.570 95N 1016 N-16 663,990.432 1,848,439.327 27.528 95N 1017 N-17 663,082.714 1,848,445.239 34.037 95N 1018 N-18 663,049.538 1,848,436.562 31.000 95N 1019 N-19 663,046.884 1,848,430.081 27.616 99 1020 N-20 663,050.853 1,848,421.543 24.100 95N_1022 N-22 663,013.633 1,848,418.536 30.398 95N_1023 N-23 662,979.681 1,848,438.448 30.527 95N_1037 3L, 663,362.857 1,848,424.950 31.137 95N 1039 4M 663,365.360 1,848,429.513 29.756 95N 1043 5M 663,349.672 1,848,435.998 30.208 95N 1044 5L 663,351.592 1,848,437.757 31.622 95N_1045 6P 663;326.228 1,848,439.674 26.206 95N_1046 6N 663,331.936 1,848,444.698 28.436 95N 1047 6M 663,337.641 1,848,449.717 31.747 LJ J II II II II II II II II II Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 11-28-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO NAME U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. (ft) 1 PN-0001 2,175,256:266 6,054,604.226 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 95N_1003 N-03 2,176,466.830 6,064,240.083 97.145 95N 1004 N-04 2,176,349.412 6,064,305.708 59.961 95N 1005 N-05 2,176,386.457 6,064,396.002 113.711 95N 1007 N-07 2,176,257.620 6,064,479.465 103.054 95N_1009 N-09 2,176,206.027 6,064,339.942 39.206 95N 1012 N-12 2,175,884.410 6,064,484.166 92.236 95N 1013 N-13 2,175,791.373- 6,064,486.597 93.732 95N 1016 N-16 2,175,489.193 6,064,421.360 90.314 95N_1017 N-17 2,175,463.870 6,064,440.755 111.671 95N_1018 N-18 2,175,355.025 6,064,412.288 101.705 95N_1019 N-19 2,175,346:319 6,064,391.025 90.603 95N 1020 N-20 2,175,359.340 6,064,363.013 79.067 95N 1022 N-22 2,175,237.229 6,064,353.146 99.730 99 1023 N-23 2,175,125.837 6,064,418.474 100.155 95N 1037 3L 2,176,382:974 6,064,374.190 102.154 95N 1039 4M 2,176,358.378 6,064,389.161 97.625 95N 1043 5M 2,176,339.716 6,064,410.435 99.108 9SN 1044 5L 2,176,346.013 6,064,416.208 103.747 95N 1045 6P 2,176,262.798 6,064,422.497 85.978 95N 1046 6N 2,176,281.525 6,064,438.981 93.294 95N 1047 6M 2,176,300.245 6,064,455.448 104.155 i 1 Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star Net Adjustment 32184 Change in Coordinates and Elevations Epoch 11/28/95 vs. Prior Epoch 9129195 STA. NO. NUKIrHING(Y) LXSTING(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (11/28/95) STA.- ELEV. (ft) NO. NORTH114Gfq- EA G(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (9129/95) ELEV. (ft) HANGE RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST PRIOR: ELEV CHANGE RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST INITIAL ELEV ou 6,064, 4. 4 4 5 6 6,064,604.22 109.494 0. 0.00 0.0 0. 2 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 2 2,176,34tl:414 6,064,779.485 105.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 95N_1003 2,176,466.830 6,064,240.083 97.145 95S_1003 2,176,466.834 6,064,240.084 6,064,305.745 97.143 59.915 0.004 0.015 0.001 0.037 0.002 0.047 0.003 0.034 0.002 0.057 0.021 0.001 95N1004 2.176,349.412 6,064,305.708 59.961 95S_1004 113.711 95S_1005 2,176,349.427 2,176,386.467 6,064,396.030 113.708 0.010 0.028 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.0095N__1005 95N 1007 2,176,386.457 2,176,257.620 6,064,396.002 6,064,479.465 103.054 95S_1007 2.176,257.622 6,064,479.442 103.070 0.002 0.023 0.015 0.053 0.007 0.01p 0.001 020.02 0.030 95N_1009 2,176,206.027 6,064,339.942 39.206 95S_1009 2,176,206.005 2,175,884.379 6,064,339.949 6,064,484.180 39.153 92.370 0.022 0.031 0.007 0.015 0.134 0.01,a' 0.023 0.009 0.009 95N 1012 2,175,884.410 064,484.166 92.236 95S 1012 95S_1013 2,175,791.387 6,064,486.633 93.806 0.013 0.036 0.074 0.01,5 0.005 0.100 95N_1013 95N_ 78 1016 2,175,791.373 2,175,489.193 064,486.597 6,064,421.360 93.732 90.314 95S_1016 2,175,489.192 6,064,421.324 90.338 0.001 0.036 0.002 0.06 0.014 0.0320.032 95N_1017 2,175,463.870 0.756,064,440.755 111.671 95S_1017 2,175,463.888 6.064,440.798 6,064,412.314 111.673 101.744 0.018 0.020 0.043 0.026 0.002 0.039 O.Otl1 0.0& 0.014 0.021 0.050 95N_1018 2.175, 463.870 6,064,4 6,064,391.025 101.705 95S_1018 90.603 95S_1019 2,175,355.045 2,175,346.295 6,064,391.033 90.667 0.024 0.032 0.046 0.056 0.086 450.10495N_1019 95N_1020 2,175,346.319 2,175,359.340 6,064.363.013 79.067 95S_1020 2,175,359.324 61064,363.044 79.021 99.703 0.016 0.032 0.029 0.046 0.027 0.079 0.01'6 0.086 0.034 0.104 0.042 95N_1022 2,175,237.229 6,064,353.146 99.730 95S_1022 2,175,237.262 6,054,353.175 100.094 0.023 0.022 0.060 0.008 0.016 0,022 95N_1023 2,175,125.837 6,064,418.474 100.155 95S_1023 102.154 95S_1037 2,175,125.853 2,176,382.967 6,064,418.496 6,064,374.192 102A11 0.016 0.007 0.002 0.043 0.100 0.006 0.285 95N_1037 95N_l039 2,176,382.974 2,176,358.378 6,064,374.190 6,064,389.161 97.625 95S_1039 2,176,358.399 6,064,389.191 97.644 0.021 0.030 0.018 0.129 0.103 0.012 95N_1043 2,176,339.716 6,064,410.435 99.108 95S_1043 2,176,339.726 2,176,345.995 6,064,410.476 6-064,416.217 99.086 103.758 0.010 0.018 0.040 0.008 0.021 0.010 0.061 0.013 0.044 0.013 0.024 0.035 95N_1044 2,176,346.013 6,064,416.208 103.747 95S_1044 95S_1045 2,176,262.789 6,064,422.530 85.905 0.009 0.032 0.073 0.024 95N_1045 95N_1046 2,176,262.798 2,176,281.525 6,064,422.497 6,064,438.981 85.978 93.294 95S_1046 2,176,281.551 6,064,439.027 93.264 0.026 0.045 0.030 0.004 0.010 0.021 95N_1047 2,176,300.245 6,064,455.448 104.155 95S_1.047 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.431 104.179 1 0.026 0.017 0.024 0.026 0.012 0.051 I 1 i II I bbert `Behl,`Wi E= 9i'ost 6.c9,ssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS February 21, 1996 JN 32184 Mr: Pat Thomas , LAW/CRANDELL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-1554 Subject: Park Newpbrt'Monitoring Survey Dear Mr. Thomas: I am pleased to submit to you the results, of the monitoring survey performed at the Park Newport site during January of 1996 (Epoch 1/19/96). This most recent epoch was the third of a series of bi-monthly monitorings on Stations 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047. Please find enclosed the state plane coordinates and elevations for this most recent epoch and a table which compares the coordinates and elevations from this most recent epoch with those generated from the prior epoch. The survey was conducted from January 19 through January 26 using a combination of GPS and conventional survey techniques. All survey measurements were combined into a simultaneous least squares adjustment and constrained to the project control stations, PN-0001 and PN-0002. The final coordinates are in terms of the California State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, Zone 6. The RMS of the error ellipse for each station for Epoch 1/19/96 is 0.03 feet horizontally and 0.05 feet vertically. The RMS of the relative error ellipse for each station between Epoch 1/19/96 and prior Epoch 11/28/95 (i.e. between Station 96J_1003 and 95N_1003) is 0.05 feet horizontally and 0.07 feet vertically. 1.17?5 ALrON PARKWAY . P O BOX 57057 • 1RVINE. CALIFORNIA 026 19.7057 • (7141 472.3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 nrFIOFS I OrATED THROUGHOI IT r Al 19nRNIA It was a pleasure to provide these services for you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. pL LAND Sincerely, v Exp. Daniel W. Bustamante, OFCAL F P\ P Project Surveyor GPS Services DWw w Iw ! cc: Ken Dressell - Gerson, Bakar, and Associates 0 M Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 1-19-96 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. 1 NAME pN-0001 METERS 663,019.436 1,848,495.065 ELE . (m) 33.314 2 PN-0002 663,349.885 1,848,548.484 32.059 96J 1003 N-03 663,388.424 1,848,384.076 29.620 96J1004 N-04 663,352.641 1,848,404;079 18.270 96J_1005 N-05 663,363.918 1,848,431.609 34.669 9641007 N-07 663,324.669 1,848,457.046 31.409 96J 1009 N-09 663,308.913 1,848,414.509 11.936 98J 1012 N-12 663,210.888 1,848,458.465 28.128 96J 1013 N-13 663,182.540 1,848,459.220 28.568 96J 1016 N-16 663,090.435 1,848,439.334 27.524 96J 1017 N-17 663,082.721 1,848,445.247 34.040 96J 1018 N-18 663,049.541 1,848,436.570 31.012 964_ 1019 N-19 663,046.879 1,848,430.079 27.627 96J 1020 N-20 663,050.868 1,848,421.545 24.086 96J- 1 022 N-22 663,013.637 1,848,418.539 30.407 96J 1023 N-23 662,979.682 1,848,438.444 30.511 96J 1037 3L 663,362.866 1,848,424.958 31.133 96J_ 1039 4M 663,355.371 1,848,429.520 29.769 96J 1043 5M 663,349.674 1,848,436.004 30.209 96J_ 1044 5L 663,351.581 1,848,437.755 31.638 96J_ 1045 6P 663,326.231 1,848,439.677 26.191 96J 1046 6N 663,331.936 1,848,444.706 28.436 96J 1047 6M 663,337.635 1,848,449.717 31.745 Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 321.84 State Plane Coordinates, 1-19-96 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. ft) 1 PN-0001 2,175,256.266 6,064,604.226 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 96J 1003 N-03 2,176,466.855 6,064,240.088 97.179 96J 1004 N-04 2,176,349,457 6,064,305.716 59.940 96J 1005 N-05 2,176,386.453 6,064,396.036 113.7.45 96J 1007- N-07 2,176,257.686 6,064,479.493 103,049 9641009 N-09 2,176,205.993 6,064,339.936 39.160 96J 1012 N-12 2,175,884.389 6,064,484.148 92.284 96J 1013 N-13 2,175,791.384 6,064,486.625 93.726 9641016 N-16 2,175,489.203 6,064,421.381 90.301 96J 1017 N-17 i 2,175,463.893 6,064,440.780 111.679 96J 1018 N-18 2,175,355.037 6,064,412.312 1101.746 96J 1019 N-19 2,175,346.303 6,064,391.017 90.639 96J-1 020 N-20 2,175,359.388 6,064,363.018 79.023 MCI 022 N-22 2,175,237.241 6,064,353.157 99.760 96J 1023 N-23 2,175,125.841 6,064,418.463 100.101 96J 1037 96J 1039 3L 4M 2, 176, 383.002 2,176, 358.413 6,064, 374.215 6,064, 389.184 102.141 97.666 96J_1043 5M 2,176,339.722 6,064,410.457 99.110 96J 1044 5L 2,176,345.977 6,064,416.200 103.799 96J 1045 6P 2,176,262.809 6,064,422.506 85.930 96J 1046 6N 2,176,281.525 6,064,439.008 93.295 96J 1047 6M 2,176,300.223 6,064,455.448 104.149 i Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 Change in Coordinates and Elevations f Enoch 1119196 vs. Prior Epoch 11/28/95 2661.30777.0001 PARK NEWPORT APTS. LAW/CRANDALL, INC. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SLOPE FACING BACKBAY DRIVE PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS ONE PARK PLACE 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CAIMORNU Prepared for: GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES San Francesco, California August 29, 1994 Project 2661.30777.0001 2661.30777.0002 PARK NEWPORT APTS, ALAWXRANDALL, INC. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0 MONITORING PROGRAM SLOPE FACING BACKBAY DRIVE PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS ONE PARK PLACE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES San Francisco, California September 1, 1994 Project 2661.30777.0002 I I r I n r LAW/CRANDALL; .NC. A \ ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1 November 2, 1994 Mr. Ken Dressell Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, California 94133-3298 Subject: Response to Requests Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backhay Drive Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 Dear Mr. Dressell: As requested, we have further analyzed the survey data given in our report dated September 1, 1994 for the slope facing Backbay Drive. We have also reviewed the recommendations given in our report for the slope monitoring program. The survey data analyses and clarification of our monitoring recommendations are discussed in this letter. The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants prac- ticing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. The scope of services in our authorized proposal dated July 27, 1993 included several tasks related to the slope facing Backbay Drive.' In Task 4 - Report Preparation, we were to discuss the survey data from Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF). The scope of Task 4 included a discussion of the monument installation, identification of the initial site conditions, and recommendations for additional work. Analysis of the RBF survey data was not included in the scope of our services. However, in our report. we did comment on a limited data analysis performed by RBF. Since the data analysis did not include all the data points, we recommended additional data analysis be performed. A proposal for a survey of the remaining data points and analysis of the survey data generated to date will be mailed to you within two weeks. As part of the monitoring program, we recommended regular reconnaissance and survey of the monuments. Since the failures and observed slope movement in the study area occur primarily during wet winter months, we recommend reconnaissance and survey of the slope between November and April. In general, we recommend a reconnaissance during the latter part of r December to assess slope conditions after onset of precipitation, and one reconnaissance in February to assess the condition of the slope after the peak precipitation period. In general a survey of the monuments would be appropriate after a reconnaissance in February. If distress to r 200 CITADEL DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA 9004D 213) 889.5300 • FAX (213) 721.6700 _ ONE OF NE LAW COYCAMES(D Gerson Bakar & Associatt November 2, 1994 Page 2 the slope or adjacent structures is identified by Park Newport personnel (other than at the prescribed intervals), we recommend a reconnaissance be performed at that time. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, LAAW/CRANDALL, INC. Reinard T. Knur Senior Engineering Geologist r yl- _ :. Barry J. Meyer Chief Engineer Ex;..63L-SS 661-2.lt2/klt 2 copies submitted) r—, FFD % t• c T. MNUR CERTIFIED a y ENGMEERING ,a GEDLCGIST c rF, r 1 1 September 1, 1994 j LAW/CRANDALL, INC. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, California 94133-3298 Attention: Mr. Ken Dressel it 1 I 1 Subject: Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 Ladies/Gentlemen: Our monitoring program for the slope facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, California is herewith submitted. Our work was authorized by Mr. Ken Dressel of Gerson Bakar & Assoicates. The purpose of our services is to establish a monitoring program which includes determining locations of new survey control points on the slope and adjacent structures and presenting baseline readings. This report is accompanied by a maintenance program for the slope facing Backbay Drive, under a separate cover. The information and recommendations presented in the two reports are complementary. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Respectfully submitted, Z ALL, INC. Reinard T. Knur Senior Engineering Geologist 661/cly 3 copies submitted) Barry J. Meyer Chief Engineer 200 CITADEL DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA 90040 213) 889.530D • FAX (213) 721.6700 ONE OPTHE IOW COMPANIES e MONITORING PROGRAM SLOPE FACING BACKBAY DRIVE PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS ONE PARK PLACE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES San Francisco, California Law/Crandall, Inc. Los Angeles, California September 1, 1994 Project 2661.30777.0002• Gerson Baker & Assoaates—Monitoring Program lawlCra ddl Profed 2661.30777.0002 September 1, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Im INTRODUCTION ............................................. iv 1.0 SCOPE ................................................. 1 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................ 1 3.0 BACKGROUND ........................................... 1 4.0 FIELDWORK ............................................. 3 4.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ................................ 3 4.2 SURVEY MONUMENT INSTALLATION ...................... 4 4.3 CRACK MONITOR INSTALLATION AND MEASUREMENT ......... 4 4.4 SURVEYING ........................................ 5 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS .......................................... 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 6 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 6 8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................ 7 9.0 REFERENCES ............................................ 8 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A: Survey Data By Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates APPENDIX B: Calibrated Crack Monitor Progress Forms ii Gerson Baker k Auociorel—Monitoring Program Iaw/CModaU Projea 2661.30777.0002 September 1. 1994 Table LIST OF TABLES 1 Exterior Survey Monument Summary 2 Interior Survey Monument Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) 3 Crack Monitor Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) LIST OF FIGURES Figure I Site Location Map 2 Survey Monument Location Map 3 Sketch of Calibrated Crack Monitor iii I I I I 7 L LI Cenon Bakar A Arrociote+—Monitoring Program September 1, 19W InwlaondaU Project 2661.30Tr1.0002 MI: 0 144MWI This report presents the results of our monitoring program for the slope facing Backbay Drive at the Park Newport Apartments in Newport Beach, California. The monitoring program has been developed for the slope between Big Canyon to the north and San Joaquin Hills Road to the south. This program has been developed in response to evidence of recent as well as pre -historic landslides noted in the study area. Figure 1, Site Location Map, shows the site location relative to surrounding cultural features. A separate report has been prepared addressing slope maintenance issues. This report includes the results of a baseline survey by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates RBF) for recently installed and previously existing interior and exterior survey monuments. The previously existing monuments were installed and monitored by RBF. Law/Crandall installed twelve crack monitors and obtained baseline readings. This report also includes recommendations for future periodic monitoring of the survey monuments, crack monitors, and geologic reconnaissance. The data developed from the implementation of the monitoring program will be used by Gerson Bakar & Associates and their consultants as a tool in evaluating slope performance at several locations above the slope and as an aid in developing additional monitoring procedures and future mitigation alternatives. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and'skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for Gerson Bakar & Associates and their design consultants to be used solely in the monitoring of the slope at Park Newport Apartments. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. iv Gerson Bakar d: Assocnares—Momlonng Progmm September 1, 1994 LawlCramdaU Project 2661.307T1.0002 1.0 SCOPE The long-term performance of the apartment structures located along the top of the slope facing Backbay Drive is related to the gross and surficial stability of the adjacent slopes. The monitoring program has been developed to provide baseline readings and initiate a regular program for slope monitoring adjacent to the structures. Our studies included a review of previous geotechnical reports by our firm, published literature review, geologic mapping and reconnaissance. We provided supervision for the installation of the interior and exterior survey monuments. A baseline survey of the monuments was performed by RBF. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS The Park Newport Apartments are located on the Promontory Point terrace on the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The study area for this report is bounded by Big Canyon to the north, the Park Newport Apartment buildings to the east, San Joaquin Hills Road to the south, and Backbay Drive to the west. The slopes facing Backbay Drive are up to 90 feet high at gradients of th:1 to 1 th:l (horizontal to vertical), with portions of the slope at near -vertical inclinations. The northern slopes facing Big Canyon are generally flatter with a gradient of U:1 to 31h:1, and the southern slopes facing San Joaquin Hills Road vary from near vertical to 1 1h:1. Existing site improvements include several apartment buildings, townhouses, a clubhouse and a large swimming pool. Asphalt -paved walkways, retaining walls, and water conveyance devices separate the existing buildings from the slope face. 3.0 BACKGROUND Law/Crandall (formerly LeRoy Crandall & Associates) has performed several geotechnical investigations at the Park Newport Apartments. A foundation investigation by LeRoy Crandall and Associates (LCA) dated November 21, 1968, identified several landslides and surficial failures on 1 Genoa Bakar h Arrodater—Monitoring Program September 1, IM lawlCrandaU Project 2661.30TTJ.0002 the slopes bordering the site. LCA reported that the landslides were primarily due to adverse bedding conditions and weak bedrock materials. LCA recommended a building setback line located away from the face of the slope around the limits of existing landslides or areas of potential instability. The proposed structures were recommended to be built behind the setback line or have their foundations extend below a critical plane defined by the setback line. To reduce water infiltration on the terrace, LCA recommended an impermeable blanket of compacted fill was to be placed adjacent to landslide -prone slopes; in addition, a cut-off trench was recommended. LCA advised that more than usual maintenance of the slope would be required. To reduce erosion of the slope, LCA recommended the site be graded so that surface water would drain away from the slope face. Grading for the Park Newport Apartments began in September 1969. „ y After a heavy rainfall in 1978, a landslide occurred below the structures occupied by townhomes 4570 to 4830 near the southern end of Park Newport Apartments. LCA reports dated March 10, 1978 and July 19, 1978 presented recommendations to support the affected structures. The recommendations were followed, and retaining walls were constructed at the apartments near the northeast corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Backbay Drive. During the spring of 1978, surface cracks were noticed in an asphalt walkway adjacent to the southwest exterior wall of the Building 4 parking garage and in the garage floor slab, parallel to the southwest exterior wall. Structural improvements were made to the southwest wall of the garage. To monitor movement of the slope and cracks in the southwest wall of the Building 4 parking garage, a survey program was implemented. Thirty exterior and 19 interior survey monuments were installed in May 1978. The exterior monuments consisted of 2-inch-diameter pipes filled with concrete and labeled with a brass tag. Interior monuments consisted of a chiseled "X" or a nail set into the floor slab, walls, or columns. The monuments were surveyed in both horizontal and vertical directions intermittently from May 1978 to April 1989 by RBF. 1 2 1 September 1, 1994GersonBakar & Associates —Monitoring Program lawlOwdaB Project 2661.30777.0002 1 I 1 1 1 II II II II II I In November 1978, a small landslide occurred within a larger, ancient landslide south of Building 4. A report by LCA dated June 28, 1979 evaluated the stability of the slope south of Building 4 and recommended slope monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce water infiltration and erosive runoff. Asphalt berms and pipe drains to Backbay Drive were constructed. In January 1993, after a period of intense rainfall, a landslide occurred on the southern slope of Promontory Point,120 feet west of Building 4. No buildings were affected but Backbay Drive was covered with landslide deposits. The road was closed until the following May when landslide deposits were removed and the landslide scarp was regraded. 4.0 FIELD WORK 4.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE We performed a site reconnaissance of the slope facing Backbay Drive on May 12, 1994. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to update our geologic map and to identify tensional features that may be indicative of significant downslope movement. A discussion of site geology was addressed in our previous reports. We identified several small landslides and the previously installed survey monuments by RBF during our reconnaissance. Site geology and the survey monuments are shown on Figure 2, Survey Monument Location Map. Some of the landslides encroach near the existing structures. Cracking or distress to structures was noted primarily adjacent to and within the Building 4 parking garage. The asphalt walkway on the southwest side of the building showed indications of water ponding, which is indicative of settlement. Cracks in the southwest wail of the Building 4 parking garage were also noted; however it was not possible to identify when the cracks initially occurred. A small failure was noted near the stairs on the southwest side of Building 4 outside the perimeter fence parking garage southwest wall. A white polyvinyl (PVC) pipe was exposed in the failure scarp. The soils near the pipe were very moist, indicating a leak. Cracks in the soil observed during the rainstorms of January 1993, near the top of the slope between the Spa and Townhouse 4570, near the southern end of the study area, did not appear to I 3 Gerson Bakar & Associates —Monitoring Program September 1, 1994 Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 have moved appreciably since winter 1993. The hardscape improvements located directly upslope of the cracks did not appear to be affected by movement. 4.2 SURVEY MONUMENT INSTALLATION Monuments were installed on the slope south of Building 4 and in the southwest portion of the Building 4 parking garage. Surveys of the monuments were performed by RBF at irregular intervals from May 1978 to April 1989. Based on the location of previously trapped landslides and observations of recent slope movements, several additional locations were chosen by LCA for monument installation. Damaged or missing exterior survey monuments from the previous survey by RBF were replaced and 21 new monuments were installed. A total of 40 exterior monuments are currently located in the study area. Three survey monuments were placed at off -site locations for reference. The locations of the exterior survey monuments relative to known geologic conditions are shown on Figure 2. A description of the exterior survey monuments is included on Table 1, Exterior Survey Monument Summary. The damaged or missing monuments within the Building 4 parking garage were identified and replaced. No new survey monument installations were made in the parking garage. A total of 36 monuments are located near the southwest wall of the Building 4 parking garage interior. The locations of the interior monuments are shown on Figure 3, Interior Survey Monument Location Map. A description of the interior survey monuments is included on Table 2, Interior Survey Monument Summary - Building 4 Parking Garage. Data regarding the measurement of the various survey monuments by RBF is presented in Appendix A. 4.3 CRACK MONITOR INSTALLATION AND MEASUREMENT Twelve crack monitors were located and installed by Law/Crandall on the southwest wall of the Building 4 parking garage. The crack monitors were installed across cracks identified during the site reconnaissance. The crack monitors are constructed with overlapping pieces of PVC plastic 4 I Gerson Bakar & Associates —Monitoring Program September 1. 1994 law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 fastened to each side of the crack. The lower portion of the monitor is opaque plastic embossed with a grid pattern. The upper portion of the monitor is translucent, with the exception of embossed cross -hairs. A hinged metal cover was mounted over the crack monitors to protect them from vandalism. A diagram of a typical crack monitor is included as Figure 3, Sketch of Calibrated Crack Monitor. The locations of the calibrated crack monitors are shown on Figure 2. A description of each crack monitor installation is included on Table 3, Crack Monitor Summary, Building 4 Parking Garage - Southwest Wall. The calibrated crack monitors were measured by Law/Crandall personnel on July 13, 1994. Figures identifying the relative positions of the crack monitors are included in Appendix B, Calibrated Crack Monitor Progress Sheet. The progress sheets will be updated with each site reconnaissance. C1,wYiaAli *V Q04 All of the exterior survey monuments were surveyed by RBF to determine both horizontal and vertical positions. The exterior monuments were surveyed on January 6, 1994 by RBF using Global Positioning System Interferometric Surveying Techniques. A copy of the data generated by RBF is presented in Appendix A. The exterior survey monument horizontal positions are reported relative to state plane coordinates and ellipsoidal coordinates; the vertical positions are reported relative to mean sea level. All of the interior monuments were surveyed by RBF on December 5, 1993 using traditional surveying methods. The lateral distances between the interior survey monuments was measured; the vertical positions are reported relative to mean sea level. 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS A comparison of data from the earlier and the current surveys was made by RBF for the intact interior survey monuments. RBF calculated monument elevation displacements between the prior reading in April 1989 and the recent survey in December 1993. These values shown in Appendix A range between -0.009 to 0.038 feet. The differences between readings of May 1978 Gj 1. Gerson Bakar h Associates —Monitoring Program - September 1, 1994 Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 1. 1. 1. 1. II II and December 1993 range from -0.068 to 0.042 feet. The survey data indicates that most of the monuments apparently displaced upwards relative to mean sea level. Monument lateral displacements ranging from 0.0 to 0.015 feet were calculated for the period between April 1989 and December 1993 across the former crack in the Building 4 parking garage floor slab. Total lateral displacement since May 1978 ranges from 0.005 to 0.064 feet. The exterior survey monument horizontal locations were not compared. The precision of the survey is 0.01 feet. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The comparison of the survey data by RBF indicate that some movement has occurred across the repaired crack in the Building 4 parking garage. The lateral monument displacement is consistent with shape and orientation of the crack. The rise in the monument elevation measured since earlier surveys is possibly associated with settlement of the reference point relative to the surveyed monuments. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our observations and limited analysis of survey data by RBF, displacement of the slope facing Backbay Drive and the Building 4 parking garage southwest wall has occurred. We recommend additional analysis of the enclosed survey data as well as regular reconnaissance and surveys of the monuments. During the next survey to be performed on the site, the reference point elevation for the interior survey monuments should' be verified. Park Newport maintenance personnel should regularly perform routine checks of the slope and performance of Building 4. If irregularities such as cracks, water ponding areas, fences out of plumb, etc., are noted, our office should be notified so that a more detailed site reconnaissance can be performed. In general, a site reconnaissance of the slope and readings of the calibrated crack monitors is suggested on an annual basis, after the rainy winter months, unless slope or building irregularities are noted where more frequent measurements may be necessary. 3 rGerson Dakar d Associates—Madtonng Progmm September 1, 1994 aw/LYandaU Project 2661.30777.0002 r 1 r r r r 8.0 LIMITATIONS The purpose of the monitoring program is to provide measurements of slope and building movement. Although the monitoring program can provide information concerning slope movement, it is possible that sudden slope movement may occur that does not allow the initiation of a mitigation plan in sufficient time to stop or reduce the amount of slope movement. I Gerron Bakar h Associates —Monitoring Program September 1, 1994 Iawl&amdaG Project 2661.30777.0002 9.0 REFERENCES Brownlee, W.R., Taylor, B.D., 1981, Inland Sediment Movements by Natural Process, Management for Southern California Mountains, Coastal Plains and Shoreline,Environmental Quality Laboratory, California Institute of Technology EQL Report No. 17-B. California Department of Water Resources, 1967, "Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County." Campbell, R.H., 1975, "Soil Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorm in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 851. Department of Building and Safety, City of Los Angeles, 1970, "Guide for Erosion and Debris Control in Hillside Areas". Department of Conservation, Resources Agency, 1981, "Erosion of Sediment Control Handbook, State of California". LeRoy Crandall and Associates, April 30, 1991, "Geologic Evaluation of Slope Below Building 4, Newport Beach, California, for Park Newport Apartments", (LCA 09101 LEO). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, June 28, 1979, "Report of Slope Stability Study, West Facing Slope Adjacent to Building 4, Park Newport Apartments, San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California, for Gerson-Bakar & Associates", (AE-79072). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, July 19, 1978, "Suggestions for Slope Repairs, Existing Slope West of Buildings 32, 35, 3.6 and 37, Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California", (C-78019). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, July 7, 1970, "Recommendations for Drainage and Erosion Control, Buildings 4, 5, .and 6, Proposed Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California", (A-68249). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, December 26, 1968, "Report of Soil and Foundation Investigation Phase I, Proposed Headlands Apartments, Promontory Point Area, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California, for Gerson-Bakar & Associates", (A- 68249). Mayor's Landslide Committee, 1967, "Landslide and Attendant Problems", City of Los Angeles, A Report to the Mayor. Mitchell, J.K., Villet, W.C.B., 1987, "Reinforcement of Earth Slopes and Embankments", Transportation Research Board, Report 290. I Gereon Bakar ! Assodxes—Monitoring Ptvgm September 1. 1994 law/ChmdaU Project 2661.30T1J.0002 Morton, P.K., and Greensfelder, R.W., 1976, "Map Showing Recency of Faulting, Relative Seismic Shaking, Liquefaction Potential and Earthquake Epicenters of Orange County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 79-8LA. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Fife, D.L., 1973, "Preliminary Geo-environmental Maps of Orange County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. Schuster, R.L., Krizer, R.S., 1978, "Landslides, Analysis and Control", Transportation Research Board, Special Report, 176. Sprotte, E.C., Fuller, O.R., Greenwood, R.B., Mumm, H.A., Real, C.R., Sherbourne, R.W., 1980, "Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits of Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 80-19LA. Tan, S.S., and Edgington, W.J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 127. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1965, Photorevised 1981. 1 I 1 I Woodward -McNeill & Associates,1972, "Geologic Seismic Study; Phase I for the City of Newport Beach." Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T,H„ Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G., 1965, "Geology of the Los Angeles Basin - An Introduction," U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 420-A. Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface -Faulting Potential," in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in Los Angeles Region - an Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. 9 Gerson Bakar & Assodatts—Moniroring Program September 1, 1990 IawlCra daU Projea 2661.30TI1.0002 I I' G zIMx1 September 1, 1994 A 2661.30777.0002 Page 1 II I I I I 1! I I I I Table 1 Exterior Survey Monument Summary Station Number Name Monument Description I PN-0001 1.5" bronze disk in concrete walk 2 PN4M 1.5" bronze disk in concrete walk 6249 OCS 6249 2" bronze disk in monument well (off -site control reference) 1003 N-03 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1004 N-02 1.5' bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1005 N-05 1.5" bronze disk in concrete roof of parking garage 1006 N-06 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1007 N-07 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1008 N-08 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1009 N-09 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1010 N-10 1.5" bronze disk in 2" pipe with concrete collar 1011 N-11 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1012 N-12 1.5" bronze disk in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1013 N-13 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1014 N-14 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1015 N-15 1.5' bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1016 N-16 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1017 N-17 1.5" bronze disk in top of block wall 1018 N-18 Punched spike in top if wooden pile 1019 N-19 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1020 N-20 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1021 N-21 Punched spike in top of wooden pile 1022 N-22 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1023 N-23 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1030 M Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 11 setnom-aruoy Ly I September 1, 1994 2661.30777.0002 Page 2 Table 1 Exterior Survey Monument Summary Station Number Name Monument Description 1031 L Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1032 1M Nail tag in 2" ironand pipe with concrete collar 1033 1K Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete. collar Nail and tag in 2" iron10342M pipe with concrete collar 1035 2K Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1036 3M Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1037 3L Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1038 4N Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1039 4M Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1040 4L Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1041 SP Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1042 SN Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1043 5M Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1044 5L Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1045 6P Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1046 6N Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1047 6M Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1048 6L Spike and Washer in Asphalt Walk (Down 0.3 feet) 061/lDrrA2rl/cy I I I I I I September 1, 1994 2661.30777,0102 Page 1 Table 2 Interior Survey Monument Summary Building 4 - Parking Garage) Interior Survey Monuments Monument Description IA Lead and tack 1B Lead and tack IC Lead and tack 1D Lead and tack 1DE Lead and tack IE Lead and tack IEF Lead and tack 1F Lead and tack 1FG Lead and tack IG Lead and tack 1H Lead and tack 1I Lead and tack II Lead and tack 2A Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2C Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2E Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2G Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2H Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 21 Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 27 Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 3A Lead and tack 3B Lead and tack 3D Lead and tack 3DE Lead and tack I September 1, 1994 2661.30777.0002 Page 2 Table 2 Interior Survey Monument Summary Building 4 - Parking Garage) Interior Survey Monuments Monument Description 3E Lead and tack 3EF Lead and tack 3F Lead and tack 3FG Lead and tack 3H Lead and tack 4D Lead and tack 4DE Lead and tack 4E Lead and tack 4EF Lead and tack 4F Lead and tack 4FG Lead and tack 4G Lead and tack September 1, 1994 2661.30777.0002 Page 1 Table 3 Crack Monitor Summary Building 4 - Parking Garage) Crack Monitor Height Monitor Wall Monitor Above Ground Number Crack Orientation Orientation Orientation' feet) CM -1 Horizontal, in column, at Southwest- Vertical 6.75 bottom of beam line Northeast CM-2 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7.75 grout between wall blocks Southeast CM-3 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7.0 grout between wall blocks Sotuheast CM-4 Dips 300 from horizontal, Northwest- Dip 600 to 6.75 in wail, to northwest across Southeast southwest blocks CM-5 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7 grout between wall blocks Southeast CM-6 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7 grout between wall blocks Southeast CM-7 Horizontal, in column, at Southwest- Vertical 6.5 base of beam across blocks Northeast CM-8 Horizontal, in column, in Northwest- Vertical 6.25 blocks 6 inches below base Southeast of beam CM-9 Dips 45° from horizontal Northwest- Dips 450 to 7 to southeast; across blocks Southeast northwest CM-10 Horizontal, in column, at Southwest- Vertical 6.5 . bottom of beam contact Northeast CM-11 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7.6 - grout between blocks Southeast CM-12 Vertical, in column at Southwest- Horizontal 7.0 beans- column connection Northeast Notes: Crack monitor vertical and horizontal orientation is in reference to long axis of monitor. 66Inom-2.rx y I pi 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 E 11 t Gerson Bakar & dssociares—Monitoring Program September 1, 1994 Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 i FIGURES 1 1 h;."e%' • _ - SPILLWAY POIN WE FMi? Jit IV' jo y, t,• J Y I • .: • •M:,@ • ,s _ `"mow I T I u •I '" ,}tr „ •.1. . C !" )e BMiti."o" se. non rr. BM • ~' wwt IRVINS '1 •• I,K/'bI ''•a••_. 'MIitlee I \) ~o' Q jI I ,u 1I '-mot• o. \scp`•.i y . Tffir 96 ` 73 T,- terLigbi_•::,'.'tr q c4 V4AYr1. IJt/YbWY11l` 3b`' - '• N1 P EYSL' i Wit, HI\I' x ' , ( tilt_.. I \ ' . — ! i ry• 14 R_ F_FF_R_F__NC5F U. S.G.S. 7.5' LAGUNA BEACH, NEWPORT BEACH AND TUSTIN QUADRANGLES 1965, PHOTOREVISED 1981. N SITE LOCATION MAP PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA scale Feat LAW/ CRANDALL, INC. FIGURE 1 I e 90RHO 3 DORM 4 79 t2-5BORING2 17 12 16 24.5 25 17 DORM 6 ' 29 20S 7 to A , 4 72 22l` 32 BDRMc , 20 13 ,' 40 24 12 F 33 5 10 T.D. St' 9 24.5 12 tS lay 25 T.D.37 20' T 30.5 52y 26 T 30 \ TO St' I20 a-i•- 27 f 41.5 \ \ I 1 42 T.D. 31' \ I T 42 \ \ T•0^ 6f' , I I 018 i BLDG. 4-\ I ell I ! 1 ,,. j .1 + ,' a ;> •' \ \ \ 0 26.30 j\ c3150 \ BLDG. 4 \ Also 3180 ., \ oM 3,90 3210 A \ I+k LAND6LLDE 1/90 1 i i Fp rot ', / /,,;'l, - 9 oarsat BORING 7 10a a.`s it 3- 7 14\ 11.s 14{ 14 TA 21' MCI 1 BORING 7 27t 10 D 12 15 19 10L n0 23 10 30 IF 35 I' 3 40 i9 48 2 , so p9 80 ras a at f 2 93 T. D. 100' DORI140 B h0 ' 12 19 T 25 h2 29 15 37 is 40.5 T. D. 21' I BORM e 20\ 6 23 10 Z01 16 2SA 20 224 , 25 271 30 1B/ 35 20j 38 22 43 2s\ 47 30\ 60 20 d 23\ 60 26\ 62 26\ 70 T. D. 76' SPA BORING S A2 13 62 to 26 6 28 32 SO 38 41 47" 45 49 40 42- 52 z- . 58 66'\` as 1 14" m ' V LANDBL.>< 7E 11i78 \ j / EXPLANATION: e N-aoo2 MONITORING REI=ERENCE STATION --AND NUMBER 01031 RECENTLY INSTALLED MONITORING STATION AND. NUMBER'S 1046 PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED .MONITORING .STATION AND NUMBER CRACK MONITOR LObATION .AND NUMBER ter..!/ '——_`\ : •' 0 PREVIOUSLY DRILLED : BORING (LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES JOB NO. AE.79072 DATED '6/26/79) 4) PREVIOUSLY 'DRILLED BORING (LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES JOB NO. A68249 DATE 12/26/68) at ARTIFICIAL FILL QUATERNARY;= ALLl1VIUM _-.. :..:. >,• -_ _-• : ' ...: - .:_ _. - • :._ 0119 QUATERNARY. LANDSLIDE .DEPOSITS QUATERNARY TERRACE, DEPOSITS . Tm TERTIARY MONitREY .FORMATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT APPROXIMATE . LIf t P LANDSLIDE 1J} ARROW IN AppkOXI ATE DIRECTION OF' SLIPPAGE ELEVATION , 00NTOUR 0, FEET y STRIKE" AND : DIP` OF btbDING; : P0iOR LANDSLIDE ; E F E I` N C E: 2k . STRIKE AND IP., tJF § CKENSibk'.. -TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (DATED 3/16/93) BY kOb RREIN, WILLIAM FROST Ric ASSOCIATES GROUNDWATER •SEi`PIGE ; DORM 4 36 17 DOING 3 u 121 27/ 24 y 26 2y 29 J- 35 401 33 2b 40 41 41y 43 43 i 40 4 49 2y 64 33 22 L_ 60 4e 53 as t0. or T. D. 9S 1 BLDG. 3 IVL SCALE: V = 60' CONTOUR INTERVAL 1 and 5' t rnx2V 9'- I L 4640 ki LXgAAND" 200 Citadel 181E Cellg 1 zrs, i• X7._. CALIBRATED CRACK METAL COVER TO PROTECT MONITOR LONG AXIS OF MONITOR OPAQUE PLASTIC WITH PRINTED GRID PATTERN IN WALL COVER NICE: EXTRA MOUNTING HOLES NOTES: GRID PATTERN IN MILLIMETERS 3 MILLIMETERS CLEARANCE BETWEEN TOP OF DEVICE AND BOTTOM OF METAL COVER MOUNTING SCREW AND WASHER IN OVERSIZED HOLE r- MOUNTING SCREWS CLEAR PLASTIC WITH CROSS HAIRS LOCKING SCREW AND WASHER IN OVERSIZED HOLE LAW/CRANDALL, INC. I FIGURE 3 Gerion Baiar A Associates —Monitoring Progmm lawlCramdaA Project 2661.30TT1.0002 September 1, 1996 APPENDIX A SURVEY DATA BY ROBERT BEIN, WMLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES 9ober't cBeiil,Williarn `FYost 6&C,9ssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: LAW/CRANDALI, INC. DATE: January 31, 1994 200 Citadel Drive F JOB NO.: 30424 Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 REFERENCE: Park Newport DESCRIPTION: Monitoring ATTN: Mr. Reinard Knur TENT TO Mail BMessenger BBlueprinter Overnight DeliveryYOUVIA: NFax Modem Your Pick -Up NO.OF NO.OF DESCRIPTION COPIES SHEETS 1 Sheet 1 of Park Newport Exhibit 1 Coordinate Lists in Ellipsoidal and State Plan Terms t SENT FOR YOUR: Approval Approval Review CommentsHInformation Per Your Request 1 XBUse X Released REMARKS: ROBERT XN, WSJ I IAM OST & ASSOCIATES BY: Daniel W. Bustamant.e } Project Surveyor GPS Services COPIES TO: 1472E ALTON PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 19739 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92713.9739 • (714) 472.3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 OFFICES IN CORONA • DENVER • PALM DESERT . SACRAMENTO • SAN DIEGO • TEMF(")I A L Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 STl NO 1 2 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 STATE PLANE COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH PN-0002 N-03 N-02 N-05 N-06 N-07 N-08 N-09 N-10 N-11 N-12 N-13 N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-19 N-20 N-21 N-22 N-23 M L I 1K 2M 2K 3M 3L 4N 4M 4L 5P 5N 5M 5L 6P 6N 6M 6L O WIPIIUTMAF#14 2,176,340.414 2,176,466.838 2,176,349.450 2,176,386.464 2,176,384.164 2,176,257.623 2,176,184.706 2,176,206.015 2,176,084.375 2,176,044.972 2,175,884.428 2,175,791.357 2,175,735.229 2,17508.359 2,175,489.169 2,175,463.871 2,175,355.029 2,175,346.263 2,175,359.258 2,175,283.373 2,175,237.241 2,175,125.850 2,176,479.965 2,176,486.346 2,176,441.113 2,176,450.788 2,176,407.534 2,176,418.564 2,176,377.911 2,176,382.878 2,176,339.752 2,176,358.508 2,176,363.928 2,176,302.330 2,176,321.064 2,176,339.781 2,176,346.031 2,176,263.508 2,176,281.523 2,176,300.221 2,176,306.825 6,064,779.485 6,064,240.080 6,064,305.765 6,064,396.021 6,064,205.910 6,064,479.469 6,064,439.321 6,064,339.964 6,064,439.308 6,064,486.913 6,064,484.174 6,064,486.601 6,064,458.097 6,064,462.737 6,064,421.362 6,064,440.735 6,064,412.261 6,064,391.034 6,064,363.098 6,064,377.317 6,064,353.107 6,064,418.458 6,064,251.352 6,064,256.973 6,064,295.542 6,064,306.218 6,064,333.505 6,064,342.907 6,064,367.241 6,064,374.197 6,064,372.740 6,064,389.262 6,064,395.315 6,064,377.563 6,064,394.098 6,064,410.479 6,064,416.221 6,064,423.147 6,064,438.990 6,064,455.437 6,064,460.955 105.180 97.170 59.943 113.788 27.527 103.084 82.961 39.173 76.354 89.414 92.240 93.635 91.304 96.696 90.392 111.680 101.735 90.748 79.171 101.705 99.740 100.119 103.236 102.760 96.698 103.730 96.144 103.957 96.826 102.430 86.773 97.636 103.436 81.077 99.132 103.699 85.953 93.315 104.195 M. M Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 ELLIPSOIDAL COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH GRS80 ELLIPSOID, NAD83(1986) NGVD29 STATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELLIPSE -.GEIOD93 NO _ NAME D M: S D M ' S HGT (rri) ELV (m) HGT (m) 1 PN-0001 33 37 33.19470 117 52 58.55220 -1.510 33.374-34.884 c VN-000z . 33 37 43.94631 117 52 56.68056 2.813 32.059 34.872 1003 N-03 33 37 45.11331 117 53 3.08249 5.278 29.618 34.896 1004 N-02 33 37 43.96228 117 53 2.28401 16.613 18.271 34.884 1005 N-05 33 37 44.34241 117 53 1.22357 0.200 34.683 34.883 1006 N-06 33 37 44.29021 117 53 3.47122 26.496 8.390 34.886 1007 N-07 33 37 43.08085 117 53 0.21294 3.473 31.420 34.893 1008 N-08 33 37 42.35333 117 53 0.67415 9.596 25.287 34.883 1009 N-09 33 37 42.54871 117 53 1.85301 22.944 11.940 34.884 1010 N-10 33 37 41.36086 117 53 0.65574 11.610 23.273 34.883 1011 N-11 33 37 40.97847 117 53 0.08550 7.629 27.253 34.883 1012 N-12 33 37 39.38991 117 53 0.08815 6.768 28.115 34.883 1013 N-13 33 37 38.46964 117 53 0.04219 6.343 28.540 34.884 1014 N-14 33 37 37.90998 117 53 0.36885 7.055 27.829 34.884 1015 N-15 33 37 37.15031 117 53 0.29977 5.411 29.473 34.884 1016 N-16 33 37 35.47028 117 53 0.75768 7.334 27.552 34.886 1017 N-17 33 37 35.22300 117 53 0.52390 0.846 34.040 34.885 1018 N-18 33 37 34.14194 117 53 0.84043 3.877 31.009 34.886 1019 N-19 33 37 34.05192 117 53' 1.08979 7.227 27.660 34.887 1020 N-20 33 37 34.17616 117 53 1.42253 10.756 24.131 34.887 1021 N-21 33 37 33.42769 117 53 1.24037 3.887 31.000 34.887 1022 N-22 33 37 32.96760 117 53 1.51808 4.458 30.401 34.859 1023 N-23 33 37 31.87585 117 53 0.72467 4.375 30.516 34.891 1030 M 33 37 45.24492 117 53 2.95162 3.418 31.466 34.884 1031 L 33 37 45.30891 117 53 2.88635 3.563 31.321 34.88410321M333744.86744 117 53 2.42188 5.415 29.474 34.889 1033 1 K 33 37 44.96481 117 53 2.29741 3.267 31.617 34.884 1034 2M 33 37 44.54114 117 53 1.96675 5.579 29.305 34.883' 1035 2K 33 37 44.65171 117 53 1.85761 3.197 31.686 34.883 1036 3M 33 37 44.25337 117 53 1.56229 5.370 29.513 34.883 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 ELLIPSOIDAL COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH GRS80 ELLIPSOID, NAD83 1986 , NGVD29 STATION :. LATITUDE LONGITUDE .:.. ELLIPSE . .:.GEIOD93 NO _ NAME ' D M • S D M 5 HGT. m . . ELV. m ' HGT. in 1037 3L 33 37 44.30356 117 53 1.48098 -3.662 31.221-34.883 1038 4N 33 37 43.87672 117 53 1.49021 8.434 26.449 34.883 1039 4M 33 37 44.06484 117 53 1.29830 5.123 29.760 34.883 1040 4L 33 37 44.11938 117 53 1.22773 3.355 31.527 34.883 1041 5P 33 37 43.50731 117 53 1.42625 10.171 24.712 34.883 1042 5N 33 37 43.69518 117 53 1.23417 1043 5M 33 37 43.88286 117 53 1.04396 4.667 30.215 34.882 1044 5L 33 37 43.94558 117 53 0.97722 3.275 31.607 34.882 1045 6P 33 37 43.13036 117 53 0.88002 8.684 26.199 34.883 1046 6N 33 37 43.31100 117 53 0.69601 6.440 28.443 34.882 1047 6M 33 37 43.49851 117 53 0.50501 - 3.124 31.759 34.883 1048 6L 33 37 43.56470 117 53 0.44095 Robert Hein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 STATE PLANE COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH CCS83 1986 , ZONE 6 STATION NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) CONVERGENCE_: GRID . HEIGHT.' NO : - NAME METERS METERS D .: M S . - • SCALE SCALE: FACTO 1 PN-0001 663,019.436 1,848,495.065 -0 53 50.37 0.9999671 1.0000002 0.9999673 z rrv-uuuz bb3,J4U.885 1,648,548.484 0 53 49.34 0.9999673 1.0000004 0.9999678 1003 N-03 663,388.419 1,848,384.073 0 53 52.86 0.9999674 1.0000008 0.9999682 1004 N-02 663,352.639 1,848,404.094 0 53 52.42 0.9999673 1.0000026 0.9999700 1005 N-05 663.363.921 1,848,431.604 0 53 51.84 0.9999674 1.0000000 0.9999674 1006 N-06 663,363.220 1,848,373.658 0 53 53.07 0.9999674 1.0000042 0.9999715 1007 N-07 663.324.650 1,848,457.039 0 53 51.28 0.9999673 1.0000005 0.9999679 1008 N-08 663,302.425 1,848,444.802 0 53 51.53 0.9999673 1.0000015 0.9999688 1009 N-09 663,308.920 1,848,414.518 0 53 52.18 0.9999673 1:0000036 0.9999709 1010 N-10 663,271.844 1,848,444.798 0 53 51.52 0.9999673 1.0000018 0.9999691 1011 N-11 663,259.834 1,848,459.308 0 53 51.21 0.9999673 1.0000012 0.9999685 1012 N-12 663,210.900 1,848,458.473 0 53 51.21 0.9999672 1.0000011 0.9999683 1013 N-13 663,182.532 1,848,459.213 0 53 51.19 0.9999672 1.0000010 0.9999682 1014 N-14 663,165.424 1,848,450.525 0 53 51.37 0.9999672 1.0000011 0.9999683 1015 N-15 663,141.994 1,848,451.939 0 53 51.33 0.9999672 1.0000008 0.9999680 1016 N-16 663,090.425 1,848,439.328 0 53 51.58 0.9999671 1.0000012 0.9999683 1017 N-17 663,082.714 1,848,445.233 0 53 51.45 0.9999671 1.0000001 0.9999673 1018 N-18 663,049.539 1,848,436,554 0 53 51.63 0.9999671 1.0000006 0.9999677 1019 N-19 663,046.867 1,848,430.084 0 53 51.76 0.9999671 1.0000011 0.9999682 1020 N-20 663,050.828 1,848,421.569 0 53 51.95 0.9999671 1.0000017 0.9999688 1021 N-21 663,027.698 1,848,425.903 0 53 51.84 0.9999671 1.0000006 0.9999677 1022 N-22 663,013.637 1,848,418.524 0 53 52.00 0.9999671 1.0000007 0.9999678 1023 N-23 662,979.685 1,848,438.443 0 53 51.56 0.9999670 1.0000007 0.9999677 1030 M 663,392.420 1,848,387.509 0 53 52.79 0.9999674 1.0000005 0.9999679 1031 L 663,394.365 1,848,389.222 0 53 52.75 0.9999674 1.0000006 0.9999679 1032 1M 663,380.578 1,848,400.978 0 53 52.49 0.9999674 1.0000009 0.9999682 1033 1K 663,383.527 1,848,404.232 0 53 52.43 0.9999674 1.0000005 0.999967910342M- 663,370.343 1,848,412.549 0 53 52.24 0.9999674 1.0000009 0.9999682 1035 2K 663,373.705 - 1,848,415.415 0 53 52.18 0.9999674 1.0000005 0.9999679 1036 3M 663,361.314 1,848,422.832 0 53 52.02 0.9999674 1.0000008 0.9999682 M. S. M. M. M- t Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 EW E. =- = = I•. ow =_ = w STATE PLANE COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH CCS83(1986), ZONE 6 STATION-. NORTHING(Y) • EASTING(X) CONVERGENCE_: • GRID :: HEIGHT COMBINE[ 40. NAME. METERS METERS D ': M. • IS. SCALE ... SCALE: FACTO[ 1037 3L 663,362.828 1,848,424.952 -0 53 51.98 0.9999674 1.0000006 0.9999679 MOO f1Y oos,14`J.0tS3 1,84s,424.508 0 53 51.98 0.9999673 1039 4M 663,355.400 1,848,429.544 0 53 51.88 0.9999673 1040 4L 663,357.052 - 1,848,431.389 0 53 51.84 0.9999674 1041 5P 663,338.277 1,848,425.978 0 53 51.95 0.9999673 1042 5N 663,343.987 1,848,431.018 0 53 51.84 0.9999673 1043 5M 663,349.692 1,846,436.011 0 53 51.74 0.9999673 1044 5L 663,351.597 1,848,437.761 0 53 51.70 0.9999673 1045 6P 663,326.444 1,848,439.872 0 53 51.65 0.9999673 1046 6N 663,331.935 1,848,444.701 0 53 51.55 0.9999673 1047 6M 663,337.634 1,848,449.714 0• 53 51.44 0.9999673 1048 6L 663,339.647 1,848,451.396 0 53 51.41 0.9999673 1.0000013 0.9999687 1.0000008 0.9999682 1.0000005 0.9999679 1.0000016 0.9999689 1.0000007 0.9999681 1.0000005 0.9999679 1.0000014 0.9999687 1.0000010 0.9999683 1.0000005 0.9999678 r,.!A` ... t'.,. • ^ Y+r rWrr rr i + r _ __ _ _ _ _—__ '_ ___ _ n . ar.r-.—...'......_ . PARK NEWPORT. _MONIT00, G SURVFY n D..........MONITORING REFERENCE STATIONS 1978—EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS o .,,.......1994—EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS STATION NUMBER NAME MONUMENT DESCRIPTION 1 2 6249 1003 1004 1005 1006 1067 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 f036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 PN-0001 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK PM-0002 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK OCS 6249 2" BRONZE DISK IN MONUMENT WELL. (Off —site Control Refer N-03 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-02 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-05 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE ROOF OF PARKING GARAGE N-06 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-07 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE ' WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-08 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE `WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-09 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR H-10 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-11 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-12 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-13 1.5" BRONZE DISK 1N 2" IRON ;PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-14 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON "PIPE' WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-15 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-16 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-17 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN TOP OF BLOCK WALL r N-18 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE N-19 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-20 1,5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-21 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE N-22 . 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-23 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR M NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR L NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1 M NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1 K NAIL TAG 1N 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 2M NAIL h TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 2K NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 3)4 NAIL k TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 3L NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 4N NAIL do TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 4M NAIL TAG IN Z" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 4L NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIP£ WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5P NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5N NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5M NAIL TAG IN 1" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5L NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6P NAIL TAG 1N 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6N NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6M NAIL TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6L SPIKE & WASHER IN ASPHALT WALK (DOWN 0.3 fl) v Nrioot23.30 19 s j CPIs` - { • LANDSLIDE 1/90 I 9ORN0 2 17 12 BORING 7 7 ID t q\ 9.5 BORING 1 BORING 4 It 12 20 BORING a DORM 3 1e 13-A7 25 F 33 44 12 19 12 17 14\ I" 13 1'r 24w 25 52>1 26 1-9D 5 10 20-5 111 14 s+- 27 T 1 15 2 32 L 24 - TAI 21' 42 41.5 T.D. 20• i6 jr' 42 T.O. Si' 40 TA. 51• 9\ 24A TA. 51, jf 3" 1 T.D. 51• I 1 I BLDG. 4 1 1 1 I 12 IS C 19 h0 23 30 35 113 40f/ 19' 44 r 2 50 p111 DO r13 DD B at 112 93 TA 100' BOftlNfi. S` r 26 2 2.6 3i 1 i 115 '40d TA. 21' 15gipAl20 221 95 27 30 1e )_ 35 20A w 2N 43 2D\ 47 30\ 52 23\ B0 2D\ 29\ 70 T.D. 71P BORING 5 X62 t3 16 BORING 4 0/2 3a / 17 50 26 27/ 24 r 3250 26y 29 38 35 So 41 10 41A474643 M. 3 40 49 4 32 42 64T re 4 D 53 so\ Cal 4553 03 Q QUATERNARY TERRACE .DEPOSITS Tlii TERTIARY. MONTEREY FORIUATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT„ APPROXIMATE: LIMITS .OF .LANDSLIDE. ' ARROW IN APPROXIMATE DIRECTION ',PF• SUPPAGE 3o---- ,ELEVATION CdNtbUR IN FEET y/ STRIKE AND DIP OF BEbbING, PRIOk LANDSLIDE' iOPOGRApHIC MAP (DATEb 3/15/93) BY ROBERT BEIN, WILUAM FROST do ASSOCIATES 20 STRIKE AND d0: OF' SUCKENSIDE. GROUNDWATER::-SEtPAOt n . 4 1 . ... _ _ 1 _. a_ ...--. -..r •1 ... KI r.'S• Si.}. i S.e r p -1. .. ' DORM 3 L 21 1 20 Di 35 20A- 40 201 ,8 i 49 y 54 2iso 9 BD SCALE: 1" = 60' CONTOUR INTERVAL 1 and 5' 9 200 atedd erhw Lei /u,eetew rmRnrnU 1 1ri 1ri/, • w. 1, .a .. I;;. V>:x• CAI a'.•^.,:11U. V's YAM obert (Beirl,`William ITYbst QP,c54ssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: LAW/CRANDALL, INC. DATE: 200 Citadel Drive F JOB NO.: Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 REFERENCE: IATTN: Reinard Knur a SENT TO YOU VIA: NO. OF COPIES 1 1 NO. OF SHEETS SENT FOR YOUR: REMARKS: COPIES TO: DESCRIPTION: 0 Mail Messenger Blueprinter Fax 0MGdem OYour Pick -Up DESCRIPTION Monitoring Exhibit, Sheet 2 of 2 May 19, 1994 30424 Park Newport Monitoring Overnight Delivery X 2nd Day Mail Parldng Structure Monitoring Results for December 5, 1993 CommentsHinformation Per Your RequestRXBApprovalSignature11ReviewXUseReleased BY: WII„LIAM OST &ASSOCIATES Daniel W. Bustamante Project Surveyor GPS Services 14725 ALTON PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 57057 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92619.7057 • (714) 472.3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 OFFICES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA bpatterson®hunsakercom 94p) 450.5429 PIR I HUNSAKER s.33171AL ASSOCIATES R V I N E. I N C. p ENGINEERING BILL PATTMONSU-R VEYING Assistant PrdJect ManagerGOVERNMENTRELATIONS Three Hughes • Irvine, CA 92618.2021 949) 583.1010 • Fax (949) 503.0759 Iert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 I'Parking Structure Monitoring, Elevations I I it II 11 11 d I 11 STATION INITIAL ELEVATION 17-May-78 PRIOR ELEVATION 13-Apr 89 CURRENT ELEVATION 05-Dec-93 CHANGE RELATIVE TO: INITIAL I PRIOR 1A 103.946 103.950 103.954 0.0081 0.004 2A 104.927 104.925 3A WALL 104.947 104.925 104.9631 0.0161 0.038 3A FLOOR 103 9331 103.935 103.9391 0.006 0.004 16 1 103.914 103.925 103.9361 0.0221 0.011 2B 1 104.947 IDESTROYED 3B WALL 1 104.9221 104.895 104.889 0.033 1 -0.006 3B FLOOR 1 103.9141 103.890 103.896 0.018 0.006 1 C 103.907 103.9251 103.9391 0.0321 0.014 2C 104.947 104.965 104.969 0.022 0.004 3C WALL 104.931 DESTROYED 3C FLOOR 103.906 t03.850 103.841 0.065 0.009 10 103.921 103.940 103.956 0.035 0.016 2D 104.987 DESTROYED 3D WALL 104.897 104.835 104.829 0.068 0.006 3D FLOOR 103.908 103.840 103.843 0.065 0.003 4D I "103.950 103.965 103.9811 103.981 0.016 1DE 103.905 103.930 103.947 103.947 0.017 3DE 0103.825 103.825 4DE 103.950 103.975 103.9811 103.981 0.006 1 E 103.897 103.920 103.936 0:039 0.016 2E 104.947 104.955 104.9641 0.017 0.009 3E WALL 104.877 104.815 104.813 0.064 0.002 3E FLOOR 1 103.899 103.855 103.860 0.039 0.005 4E 103.940 103.965 103.976 0.036 0.011 1 EF 103.910 103.935 103.949 0.039 0.014 3EF 103.885 103.890 103.893 0.008 0.003 4EF 103.920 103.940 103.958 0.038 0.018 1F 103.879 103.905 103.918 0.039 0.013 2F 104.916 104.925 IDESTROYED 3F WALL 1 104.879 104.845 104.845 0.034 0.000 3F FLOOR 103.932 103.900 103.903 0.020 0.003 4F 103.950 103.975 103.992 0.042 0.017 1 FG 103.870 103.895 103.910 0.040 0.015 3FG 103.905 103.915 103.920 0.015 0.005 4FG 103.960 103.985 103.9981 0.038 0.013 1 G 103.913 103.940 103.9551 0.042 0.015 2G 104.957 104.975 104.980 0.023 0.005 3G WALL 104.927 DESTROYED 3G FLOOR 103960 103.945 103.950 0.0101 0.005 4G 1 104.945 103.975 103.988 0.9571 0.013 1H 1 103.865 103,895 103.9101 0.045 0.015 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 IParking Structure Monitoring, Elevations I I i I II J I! II II I ll STATION INITIAL ELEVATION 17-May-78 PRIOR ELEVATION 13Apr--89 CURRENT ELEVATION 05•Dec-93 CHANGE RELATIVE TO: INITIAL PRIOR 2H 104.967 104.985 104.987 0.0201 0.002 3H WALL 104.982 DESTROYED 3H FLOOR 103.931 103.925 103.937 0.0061 0.012 11 103.8841 103.915 103.922 0.0381 0.007 21 104.967 104.985 104.990 0.0231 0.005 31 WALL 105.0171 105.015 DESTROYED1 1 31 FLOOR 103.9101 103.915 103.9301 0.0201 0.015, 1.1 103.8841 103.920 103.9291 0.0451 0.009 2.1 1 104.9421 104.965 104.9691 0.0271 0.004 3J WALL 105.032 IDESTROYED1 3J FLOOR 103.9391 103.950 1 DESTROYED Initial i Initial Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 IParking Structure Monitoring, Distances I I STATION FROM -TO INITIAL DISTANCE 17-Ma -78 PRIOR DISTANCE' 13-A r-89 CURRENT DISTANCE 05-Dec-93 CHANGE RELATIVE TO: INITIAL PRIOR 1A - 3A 33.000 33.005 33.005 0.005 0.000 1 B - 3B 33.000 33.015 33.025 0.025 0.010 1C-3C 33.001 33.040 33.055 0.054 0.015 1D - 3D 33.000 33.045 33.060 0.060 0.015 1 E - 3E 33.001 33.050 33.065 0.064 0.015 1F-3F 32.990 33.025 33.040 0.0501 0.015 1 G - 3G 32.990 33.010 33.015 0.0251 0.005 1 H - 3H 33.005 33.010 33.0101 0.0051 0.000 11- 31 33.000 33.005 33.0101 0.0101 0.005 1J - 3J 33.000 33.010 W DESTROYED 1J - 11 18.280 18.285 0.005 11-1H 18.140 18.150 0.010 1H-1G 18.300 18.310 0.010 1 G - 1 F 16.070 16.075 0.005 1 F - 1 E 1 19.7301 19.735 0.005 1E- 1D 17.9501 17.960 0.010 1 D - 1 C 15.850 15.855 0.005 1 C - 1 B 56.3501 56.360 0.010 1B-1A 54.0701 54.090 0.020 1A-WALL 1 16.8501 16.880 0.030 1 STATION NUMBER NAME MONUMENT DESCRIPTION I PN-000 1 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK 2 PN-0002 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK 6249 OCS 6249 2" BRONZE DISK IN MONUMENT WELL (Off -site Control Refer 1003 N-03 1.5m BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1004 N-02 1.5 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1005 N-05 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN, CONCRETE ROOF OF PARKING GARAGE L ti. 1033 ,K • i X 9 F X53' roar r0 rl.R7' rDe D.a0.Y rl' rY.9J; 4D ff 9v 4X 10A 0a• 4r 05L 01043 IF Mr rrs asar rc tax, 40 FJ two IN M W ra2r Mw GERSON BAKAR AND ASSOCIATES PARK , NEWPORT MONITORING SURVEY fo r CLIENT, GERSON BAKAR AND ASSOCIATES PROJECT. PREPARED' FOR: PARK, . NEWPOR't. WNITORING SURVEY LAW CRANOALL, INC.' 731 EAST, BALL- ROAD, SUITE 104 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 I SALE: 1" -20' LEGEND MONITORING REFERENCE STATIONS 1978-EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS o ..........1994-EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS z .......... CONCRETE NAIL SET 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN p ..........LEAD $c TACK SURVEYED BY O.IIELMER PLOT DATE 2/05/94 SURVEY DATE JAN. 1994 SCALE I'mw DRAW BY B. COR JOB NO. 30424 CNECKED BY P. VAN AMMERS NOTEBOOK RBF-244 1006 N-06 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1007 N-07 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1008 N-08 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1009 N-09 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1010 N-10 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1011 N-11 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1012 N-12 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1013 N-13 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1014 N-14 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1015 N-15 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1016 N-16 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1017 N-17 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN TOP OF BLOCK WALL - 1018 N-18 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE 1019 N-19 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1020 N-20 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1021 N-21 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE 7022 N-22 1.5" BRONZE DISK 1N 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1023 N-23 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1030 M AWL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1031 L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1032 1M NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1033 1K NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1034 2M NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1035 2K NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR IOJ6 3M NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON -PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1037 3L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1038 4N NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1039 4M NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1040 4L NNL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1041 5P NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1042 5N NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1043 50 NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1044 5L NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1045 6P NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1046 6N NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1047 69 NAIL & TAG IN r IPC i PIPE N'f'H CONCRETE COLLAR 1048 6L SPIKE & WASHER IN ASPHALT WALK (DOWN 0.3 ft) lA LEAD & TACK 18 LEAD & TACK 1C LEAD & TACK 1D LEAD & TACK IDE LEAD & TACK 1 E LEAD & TACK 1 EF LEAD & TACK IF LEAD & TACK 1 FG LEAD & TACK 1G LEAD & TACK 1H LEAD & TACK 11 LEAD & TACK i LEAD & TACK 2A CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN 2C CONCRETE NAIL 1.O' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12' COLUMN 2E CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12' COLUMN 2G CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR w 12" COLUMN 2H CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12' COLUMN 21 CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN 2J CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN 3A LEAD & TACK 3B LEAD & TACK 3D LEAD & TACK 3DE LEAD & TACK jr LEAD & TACK 3EF LEAD & TACK 3F LEAD & TACK JFG LEAD & TACK JH LEAD & TACK 4D LEAD & TACK 4DE LEAD & TACK 4E LEAD & TACK 4EF LEAD & TACK 4F LEAD & TACK 4FG LEAD & TACK 4G LEAD & TACK Robert Bein,Williom Frost & Associates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS A soot H73e 14720 AM" rAWW MWE G "WK #2710 714) 472-3" SHEET 2OF2 Grin Bakar A Assonaet—Monitonng Program September 1, 1994 1aw/CYandaB Project 2661.30T11.0002 1 APPENDIX B CALIBRATED CRACK MONITOR PROGRESS FORMS II ILILIil,1i1 4J DATE OF READING: 7/1394 TIME OF READO : 924 TEMPERATURE: "s IF ay. DATE OF ROOM: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: DATE OF READING: 7/1394 TIME OF READO : 924 TEMPERATURE: "s IF ay. DATE OF ROOM: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: H. DATE OF READNO: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: II IIIIII iI I ti 1!•1111 IL' 111 I I I I I I I I H `LI Illiit'tl DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: g9WuiLi1 ii•i• u.w.w moo... I 1 1 1 1 w w DATE OF READING: TIME OF HEADING: TEMPERATURE: BY: gl mI w.wY DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: i1 1 1 1 1 oo•vw M.. DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: 20mm TO 0 TO 20 DATE OF READING- DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: TEMPERATURE: BY: BY: CALIBRATED CRACK MONITOR PROGRESS SHEET CM-1 1 F PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS DATE OF INSTALLATION wmw BUILDING 4 SOUTHERN GARAGE WALL COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION• 6 Mxt0.1 nvM.YN4pn. C