Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJamboree Road between Pacific Coast Highway and Backbay DriveArchaeological Resource Management Corporation October 8, 1987 City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Attention: Horst Hlawatly ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR THE WIDENING OF JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND BACKBAY DRIVE Between 8-28-87 and 9-2-87, Debra Allen of Archaeological Resource Manage- ment Corporation (ARMC) monitored grading operations for the widening of Jamboree Road Between Pacific Coast Highway and Backbay Drive. Ms. Allen worked under the supervision of both Marie Cottrell, Orange County certified archaeologist and Dr. Hugh M. Wagner, paleontologist. During this period, paleotological, as well as archaeological/historical resources were encountered. Paleontological Resources Three significant fossil localities were encountered and collected during the monitoring of grading operations. In the Pleistocene marine deposits that were exposed on the project, marine invertebrates (shells) are quite common, especially in the sands. One shelly bone bed'was collected, which, through wet and dry screening, produced small terrestrial mammal bones, in addition to shark, ray and fish teeth. A molar from a small mouse was recovered from locality 3. A positive identification of this mouse tooth may provide a more accurate age determination for these deposits. Specimens of two different types of rabbits and a gopher were also collected from these localites. Specific locality information will be reported to'the Orange County Natural History Foundation and to the County file for paleontological localities. Archaeological/historical Resources During the initial walkover, approximately 50 pieces of porcelain/glass/ bottle fragments, 30 pieces of chert/chalcedony chipping waste, 30 pieces of shell (chione, pecten, haliotis), 1 abalone button and 3-4 bones were observed and collected (8-28-87). On 8-29-87, a 1 x 1 meter test unit was excavated in an area of high surface concentration. The unit was excavated by shovel in 20cm levels, and passed through a 1/8" hand screen. Hard sterile soil was encountered at 40cm 812 West Amerige Avenue, Fullerton, California 92632 (714) 447-8760 and excavation ceased. Soils containing artifacts were light orange/brown, and contained very few cobbles or rock. No visable midden was observed. Five chert flakes, 5 bones, some glass and wire, turbans and abalone were recovered from the 0 - 20 cm level of the test unit; 5 chert flakes, 3 bones, some porcelain, glass, wire and shells were recovered from the 20 - 40cm level. The Sherman Library was consulted in order to determine whether historic structures had once been located on the p;oject area. Aerial photographs from 1929 clearly show the blufftop, with no apparent structures or ruins, but with tire tracks leaving the paved road and approaching the project area. Monitoring continued on 8-31-87. Bulldozers removed vegetation, scraping off about a foot. Historical artifacts were collected as exposed. A concentration of whole bottles was noted in the area between the Test Unit and the daylight cut. Approximately 200 pieces were collected, including 10 whole bottles/jars, 1 large marble, 1 lipstick and a possible pipestem. On 9-1-87, an intact trash pit was exposed about 1' below the original elevation. The pit was oval in shape, 8' long by 4' wide and up to 1 1/2' deep. The trash layer contained about 70 whole bottles and jars (2 pop bottles were dated 1923), ashes, animal bone, pockets of turban shells and large quantities of broken glass and porcelain. On 9-2-87, the monitor had the bulldozer skim the surrounding area to a depth of 2' below the trash pit. Since few cultural materials were observed, monitoring ceased at the end of the day. Artifacts recovered, field notes, and maps are housed at ARMC. Total hours expended: Marie Cottrell 1 hour at $42.50/hour $42.50 • Hugh Wagner 1 hour at $42.50/hour 42.50 Debra Allen 70.57 hours at $20.00/hour 1415.00 Total Amount Due $1500.00 I November 12, 1985 TO: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AF?rP ' Ph-T TC -PL Lc FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: JAMBOREE ROAD --COAST HIGHWAY TO BACK BAY DRIVE Attached for your file are copies of the Notice of Determination and the Negative Declaration for the subject improvements. The archeological monitoring will be included in the Special Provisions for the contract. , tM &4 Horst Hlawaty Project Manager HH:jd Att. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAMBOREE ROAD --COAST HIGHWAY TO BACK BAY DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW --NOTICE OF DETERMINATION A preliminary environmental reivew of the widening of Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive has been performed. The review was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the State "Guidelines for Implementa- tion of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970," and the City's "Policies and Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act." The environmental statement has been reviewed and was approved by the City's Environmental Affairs Committee. As 1. 2. 3. a result of the preliminary review, it has The project is approved. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. An environmental impact report has not been prepared. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto. fir» vri ker4 Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director HH:jw Att. 11-4-85 been determined that: NEGATIVE DECLARATION • TD: El Secretary for Resources 1416 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Q County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O.Bo:: 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 NAME OF PROJECT: Jamboree Road Widening PROJECT LOCATION: Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Jamboree Road by approximately 20 feet on each side to Master Plan configuration for approximately 1200 feet. i it . f 3 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Gountil Policy 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 will not have a significant effect on the environment. I: t MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Truck traffic required for the soil import will be limited to non -peak traffic times._ 2. A qualified archeologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and all work shall be done in accordance with City Council Policies K-5 and K-6. - • INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 7'�CXtINAa 4 Environmental Coordinator Date: November 1, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) 1. Background 1. Name of Proponent CIT4 OF &JEWFOP_T' BaAc1-i 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 33CO kl .wP02T 7)L-VD.) if O. 'Box fl(o , NEwpoR.r raaAcN, (4 gZ(oS R— $915 CoNATAC,T :2IPtic 'I/ OQ DEPAR_Trtj. (1W) ('-IN- 3311 3. Date of Checklist Submitted iOV MPE2 ), 198g 4. Agency Requiring Checklist (rT4 OF MElu?DRT BB7l:CN 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable J& r,e,Gfi`RDA° WLDEMIMG— (CA-ST 68'UlAM Tb BACK -BAN 'DRIVE II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and ."maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? >C c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? )( f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? �C g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar. hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: • a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate,. either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ; c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. e. f. 9. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Yes Maybe No X X Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the enumbers of any unique, . rare or endangered species of animals? %( c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? iC b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? �( 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? x 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X crop? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? • • b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of 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 upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 1I. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additionali 1 vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Yes Maybe No X k X X X Yes Maybe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? x c. Water? V d. Sewer or septic tanks? 5: e. Storm water drainage?. f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health: Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? }C 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. WIII the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. 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 wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining 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? 1 b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of Tong -term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Yes Maybe No X III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1.b. 1.c. The proposed project will result in an increase in the overall width of Jamboree Road by approximately 40 feet for a distance of 1200 feet. Over -covering of -148,000 sq.ft. of land area is considered an insignificant adverse impact. The grade elevation of the existing roadway will be raised to an approximate 7%, necessitating import of 30,000 cubic yards of material. This change will improve sight distances. The only impact associated with this is the truck traffic generated for the soil import. Truck traffic will be limited to non -peak times, reducing this impact to a level of insignifi- cance. 3.b. The increase in impermeable surface will increase runoff in the area. Existing facilities in the area are adequate to sustain the added runoff. This is an insignificant adverse impact. • 20.a.& c. There is an identified archeological site in the vicin- ity of the widening on, the easterly side of Jamboree Road. It is unknown as to whether any cultural resources exist in the project area. An archeological monitor will be on -site during grading and construction. In the event resources are discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to divert activity from the area in order to evaluate the find. All recovery shall be consistent with City Council Policies K-5 and 6. This will reduce any potential impact to a level of insignificance. PLT2 • •. 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_I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect X 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 the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date PaA Signature For teartcoriSal • • FILED NOV 221985 GARY RA I L Co t Clerk By ., u��i�� DEPUTY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAMBOREE ROAD --COAST HIGHWAY TO BACK BAY DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW --NOTICE OF DETERMINATION A preliminary environmental reivew of the widening of Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive has been performed. The review was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the State "Guidelines for Implementa- tion of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970," and the City's "Policies and Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act." The environmental statement has been reviewed and was approved by the City's Environmental Affairs Committee. As a result of the preliminary review, it has been determined that: 1. The project is approved. 2. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An environmental impact report has not been prepared. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto. 1/4 Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director HH:jw POSTED NOV 2 2 1985 Att. ' GARY L, L' u Clerk By �EPUTY 11-4-85 NEGATIVE DECLARATION r • Secretary for Resources 1416 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O.Box 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NE:7PORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, C1 92658-8915 NAME OF PROJECT: Jamboree Road Widening PROJECT LOCATION: Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Jamboree Road by approximately 20 feet on each side to Master Plan configuration for approximately 1200 £fit.+ p E NOV 22 1985 GARYL. ILL ,LII _Clerk ePUTV s ii. a FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy 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 will not have a significant effect on the environment. • ; MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Truck traffic required for the soil import will be limited to non -peak traffic times._ 2. A qualified archeologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and all work shall be done in accordance with City Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 1 INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach - INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 4.7%146,10172,54- Environmental CoordinatorGARYL Date: November 1, 1985 POSTFD NOV 2 2 1985 k 1IV 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent CIT4. OF LIE LUF00-7- BaAC.N 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 33C0 Jlf -wPOP- 1".O.'BoX rugs, N;WPORT -aEACN, (74- 92(6-53-8915 Coku*Tr rlexAc Wo2K. DEPAErMcr-rr, C'711-1)(91-11-1-331/ 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist MOW/1 EL ), 19 8g C..IT4 OF NEWPORT Ba7 cu 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable•JgyvigpibC? "OAO WtDEMIM G - COAST µI 6t+Wk4 'It HACK BAN DRIVE 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? iC b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? )( f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? \C g• Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar. hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: • Yes Maybe No a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change, in climate,. either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water moverhents, • in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? t ! c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Y X X X Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? )( 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of 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 upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? �c II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: t 1 a. Generation of substantial additional' vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? x c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? • 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of'species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? Yes M be No e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fueF or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the X development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? u d. Sewer or septic tanks? x e. Storm water drainage?. f. Solid waste and disposal? x 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. 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 wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining 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 the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1I1. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Yes Maybe No x X • • • III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1.b. 1.c. The proposed project will result in an increase in the overall width of Jamboree Road by approximately 40 feet for a distance of 1200 feet. Over -covering of ±48,000 sq.ft. of land area is considered an insignificant adverse impact: The grade elevation of the existing roadway will be raised to an approximate 7%, necessitating import of 30,000 cubic yards of material. This change will improve sight distances. The only impact associated with this is the truck traffic generated for the soil import. Truck traffic will be limited to non -peak times, reducing this impact to a level of insignifi- cance. 3.b. The increase in impermeable surface will increase runoff in the area. Existing facilities in the area are adequate to sustain the added runoff. This is an insignificant adverse impact. 20.a.& c. There is an identified archeological site in the vicin- ity of the widening on the easterly side of Jamboree Road. It is unknown as to whether any cultural resources exist in the project area. An archeological monitor will be on -site during grading and construction. In the event resources are discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to divert activity from the area in order to evaluate the find. All recovery shall be consistent with City Council Policies K-5 and 6. This will reduce any potential impact to a level of insignificance. PLT2 • 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—� 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect I x 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 the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. II . Lsimbee. 41985 Date Signature For